The Union Club of Morrisania, located in the modern day Bronx, claimed their first championship in 1867. (NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY)

This article will present a chronology of the 1868 championship season, with particular focus on the pitchers and catchers for the contending teams. It will also discuss the importance of the battery, the unique rules of the pre-National Association era that made batteries so important, and how the new phenomenon of player movement between clubs affected both the battery and the pennant.

In the early years of the Knickerbocker game, starting in 1845 and lasting until the founding of the National Association of Base Ball Players (NABBP) in 1858, the key conflict was between the hitter and the opposing fielders. The pitcher was only on the field to begin play: the batter requested a pitch location (up or down, near or away), which the pitcher had to oblige. He was limited to an underhanded pitch with a straightened elbow and wrist, rules more restrictive than the average slow-pitch softball league. Finally, the batter could wait and see as many pitches as he wanted without any rules compelling him to swing.1 The rules were meant to minimize the pitcher’s influence as much as possible.

Along came Jim Creighton, the first man to put the pitcher at the center of the conflict as a member of the lauded Excelsior Club of 1860. Creighton introduced velocity to pitching with a technically-illegal-but-impossible-to-perceive wrist flick that sent the ball toward home plate faster than batters had ever seen before.2 He was the first man who could dependably strike out more than just one or two batters in a nine-inning game.

For Creighton’s approach to work, he needed a talented catcher. Let’s first calibrate your understanding of what traits a talented catcher possessed in the 1860s. First, a catcher had to be tough. Catchers wore no protective chest padding, no face mask, no leg guards, and likely no glove, as they didn’t come into heavy use until the mid to late 1870s. A catcher also had to be agile because of an old-time play known as the foul bound catch. During this era, foul tips caught at any time during in an at-bat were outs; furthermore, the rule extended to any foul ball that bounced one time. These foul balls caught on the bounce were known as foul bound outs. Foul bound outs incentivized catchers to play much further back than they do today, with some etchings from the time showing the catcher playing several feet behind the plate (insert photo one). However, catchers had the same responsibility to hold baserunners and cut down would-be base stealers that they do today, so if a runner was on base, the catcher had to play far closer to the plate and make strong throws to the bases. Playing closer to the plate obviously made foul bounds catches more difficult. Oftentimes, bound catches made close to the plate were called “tips.” During this era, when errors in the field were quite common, catchers that could catch these fast tips, hold baserunners, and withstand the wear and tear of the position were worth two innings’ worth of outs or more.

The Excelsiors’ catcher during Creighton’s era was Joe Leggett, and he was, indeed, baseball’s first great catcher. Leggett stood in bravely against Creighton’s velocity and he was exceptional at making those tough foul tip catches. Per the New York Clipper, “Indeed so fine and reliable was his style that even now sharp ‘tips’ are reported as caught ‘a la Leggett.’”3

Creighton and Leggett were the pioneers of the battery. Modern batteries like Adam Wainwright and Yadier Molina, Don Drysdale and Johnny Roseboro, Lefty Grove and Mickey Cochrane all stood on the shoulders of Creighton and Leggett. As you will see, like those other famous batteries, the pitchers and catchers who worked well together tended to stay together in the NABBP. It was common for batteries to switch clubs together as a tandem, rather than to try to make it with a new mate, but as you’ll see in this article, pitchers could and did change teams without their counterpart.

Creighton’s every appearance inspired more pitchers to throw like him. The umpires turned a blind eye to the wrist flicks, so long as the pitcher could disguise it well enough, and thus restrictions on a pitcher’s elbow and wrist were considered a “dead letter law” when the rule was changed to allow sidearm delivery in 1872.4 Few men were as accurate as Creighton, however, and games became longer, more plodding affairs with a lot of time between balls in play. The Brooklyn and New York press decried this development, which they called “swift pitching.” “As long as swift pitching remains in vogue,” wrote the Brooklyn Eagle on October 7, 1863, “we expect to see dull, tedious and uninteresting games.”5

In response, the NABBP adopted a major rule change before the 1864 season began: to compel a pitcher to present the batter a pitch to hit, umpires now had the discretion to call balls. The Eagle celebrated the new rule on April 19, 1864, believing that this would lead to more action and relegate the pitcher back to their role as a background character in the conflict: “Hence it is that the rule will ensure more work in the field, and consequently livelier and more attractive games, for now the position of pitcher becomes secondary, the fielders being now the most important players of the Nine.”6

Another drawback of swift pitching was that it led to tired arms. Unlike the balls and strikes issue, the NABBP did not amend their rules to address this. Substitution rules of the period did not allow for anybody appear in a game outside of the original starting nine, except in the case of injury. The most a team were allowed to do were to change positions. “Change pitchers” could not be regular pitchers but had to be other position players who dabbled.

Generals Grant and Lee solved what the NABBP did not with the surrender at Appomattox Court House in April 1865. For soldiers of the North and South, baseball was a popular way to pass the time between marching and battles. The post-Civil War talent boom unearthed a bevy of young men that were capable two-way players, so teams could have a designated change pitcher that they could stick in the field without harming their offense or defense. The conventional wisdom about pitchers began to evolve. During the 1867 season, newspaper writers noted that batters struggled with changes of pace. A May 30 contest between the Irvington and Active clubs was a revelation for the Brooklyn Union, with the paper writing, “It was plainly apparent that the Irvingtons could not hit [Charles] Faitoute’s pitching as they had done that of [Eureka pitcher Harry] Lex, principally for the reason that they were practiced only in batting swift balls. For the same reason, too, viz.: want of familiarity with both styles of pitching, the Actives failed to hit [swift] balls.”7 These developments made change pitchers a requirement for first-rate clubs to stay competitive. A starting nine needed two primary pitchers, one of whom started somewhere in the field but was prepared to pitch at a moment’s notice. The two pitches should also vary dramatically, one being a swift pitcher and the other being a “slow” pitcher.

THE TITLE BELT OF BASE BALL

Before we move on to the 1868 championship season, we must re-define one last fundamental concept: what it meant to be the champion of baseball. The “championship,” despite being the fixation of the ball player fraternity, the press and the fans, was unrecognized by the NABBP.8 They did not handle scheduling, there were no regular season standings and the title was not held in abeyance until the last game of the season.

It may be helpful to think of the championship like it was an unsanctioned boxing title. The championship could change hands multiple times during a season, as it did in 1868. Any club was allowed to challenge the champion club, who then chose which challenges they accepted. Only the social norms of the era served as oversight. Championship matches were determined in a best-of-three series colloquially known as “home-and-home” series, so named because each club hosted one of the first two matches (and decided how to split the gate receipts). A third match, if necessary, was to be held at a neutral ballfield. The championship could change clubs at any point during a season, with some home-and-home series even beginning late in one season and ending early in the next.

Baseball was still a hyper-regional game concentrated almost entirely within the greater New York City area. The best clubs were all located in New York City and Brooklyn—they being two separate cities in the NABBP era. A rivalry naturally developed between the two neighbors, but both cities’ clubs also conspired with one another to keep the championship away from clubs outside of the greater New York City area. Because of this, any game that the Union Club played on their 1868 road trip is not relevant to the purpose of this article; no club outside of New York City was given the opportunity to play a complete home-and-home series. In 1868 this mainly affected the Athletic Club of Philadelphia, whose home-and-home challenges were not accepted.

Here were the self-selected major contenders for the 1868 title and how they managed the change pitching revolution:

The Union Club of Morrisania

The Union Club of Morrisania (located in the modern-day Bronx) were the champions to begin the 1868 season. They defeated the Atlantic Club of Brooklyn 14–13 on October 10, 1867, to claim their first championship. Their battery was left-hander Charlie Pabor as pitcher and Dave Birdsall as catcher. Birdsall and Pabor were a true battery. “We never saw a couple work together so well as Pabor and Birdsall,” the Clipper wrote about them in 1870. Pabor was “wild and erratic,” but Birdsall’s “courageous endurance” and willingness to “work like a Trojan to save a score of passed balls” limited the consequences of Pabor’s erraticism.9 Pabor and Birdsall also had an “Odd Couple”-style personal dynamic: Birdsall was a notorious grouch, while Pabor was considered among the most affable men in baseball. “Charley would put on the pace when he found the score increasing,” wrote the Clipper, “and consequently David would have hard word. Then it was that every growl from Dave would be met with a smile and a joke from Charley.”10

The Union chose not to add a dedicated change pitcher in 1868. The New York Tribune wrote on March 25, “[The Union] nine, unlike the Atlantic nine, has but one regular pitcher in it, and therefore is weaker to that extent.”11

With the Union as defending champions entering the 1868 season, the title could only be gained by playing them. Due to a long road trip, that ended up being difficult to accomplish early in the season. The other three championship caliber teams jockeyed for positioning and superiority among themselves by playing home-and-home series against each other, but the championship race didn’t really begin until the Union arrived home.

The Atlantic Club of Brooklyn, shown here in the bottom row with the Philadelphia Athletics in the top row, had been champions nine times between 1857 and 1867, including undefeated seasons in 1864 and 1865. (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS)

The Atlantic Club of Brooklyn

The Atlantic Club of Bedford, Brooklyn had been the champions from 1857–61 and 1864–67, including undefeated seasons in 1864 and 1865. Tom Pratt was the club’s starting pitcher during those two years, and he was regarded as one of the smartest pitchers in the game. Writers praised Pratt’s “head work,” meaning his ability to strategize against batters and induce weak contact.12 In 1866, the Atlantics signed a new pitcher named George Zettlein from their Brooklyn rivals, the Eckford Club. Zettlein was very swift, he had outstanding control, and his arm was extremely durable.13 But he lacked the “judgment,” in the words of the Brooklyn Union, that Pratt possessed. “[Pratt], therefore, cannot be improved upon or even equaled, Zettlein ranking No. 2 in comparison.”14 Pratt left the Atlantic Club shortly after Zettlein’s arrival for a club in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia club dissolved at the end of 1867, so Pratt agreed to return and serve at Zettlein’s change pitcher for the 1868 season.

Their catcher was Charley Mills, who caught Zettlein first with the Eckford Club in 1865 and then jumped with him to the Atlantic in 1866. Mills was considered one of the best at handling swift pitchers. He set up closer to home plate than any of his contemporaries, which gave him an advantage when attempting to put out base stealers. Despite his proximity to the plate, Mills was still one of the best at catching foul tips, with the Clipper saying, “the way he picks up hot grounders is a marvel.”15 Mills also had a pickoff move of sorts: he could throw to first base while making it appear like he was throwing the ball back to the pitcher.16

The Eckford Club of Brooklyn

The Eckford Club had been the champions of 1862 and 1863, after which time bigger clubs raided their talent. Second baseman Al Reach left for the Athletics of Philadelphia, starting pitcher Joe Sprague went to the Atlantics, and shortstops Tom Devyr and Ed Duffy joined the Mutuals. The Eckford Club continued losing their top talent throughout the mid-1860s, including the previously mentioned George Zettlein. Their record in 1867 was a dismal 6–16–1 and, after losing pitcher/ catcher Marty Swandell to the Mutual Club, there was no reason to believe 1868 would be any better. Martin Malone was set to be their regular starting pitcher. Courtney, first name unknown, was their default catcher after Swandell left. Their battery lacked stability all season.

The Mutual Club were seen as the strongest in New York City. Shown here in 1870, pitcher Phonney Martin is in the top row, second from the left. Third baseman Marty Swandell is to Martin’s left. Pitcher Rynie Wolters is in the bottom row, second from the right. (LIBRARY OF CONGRESS)

The Mutual Club of New York City

The Mutuals were viewed as the strongest club in New York City, with their matches against the Atlantics always the most anticipated of the season. Much of their perception was derived from the reputation of pitcher Alphonse “Phonney” Martin and catcher Nathaniel “Nat” Jewett. Both men started together with the Empire Club in 1865. After one season with the Empires, both joined the Mutual Club.

Martin earned the admiration of every New York baseball writer because he did not throw swift pitches. He threw slow pitches (or medium pitches, depending on the writer) that had a lot of spin and were difficult to hit squarely. The Brooklyn Eagle wrote after one 1867 victory, “It can truly be said that Martin won the game yesterday by his superior pitching, and the disciples of the two different schools of pitching, fast and slow, had yesterday a chance to form their estimate of which was the most effective…the continued fouls and balls hit in the air, resulting from Martin’s slow twisters, offered chance after chance for catches and base play.”17 To put it in modern terms, Martin was seen as a genuine “pitcher” whereas swift pitchers were mere “throwers.”

Martin’s style required a catcher who could catch hot foul tips for bound outs while also managing pop flies. These two traits defined the play of Nat Jewett. The New York Clipper wrote about him in 1869, “For covering an immense space he is unapproachable; and as a judge of fouls, unsurpassed…Indeed, so closely allied have been their names [Martin and Jewett] that one scarce thinks of one without also associating the other with him. Martin undoubtedly owes a great share of his present renown to the fine support he gained from Jewett.”18 Another Clipper article from January 28, 1871, estimated that Jewett lead all catchers in outs made during each season that he played with Martin.19 The press were fiercely defensive of Martin’s ability, but the Mutuals decided that a swift pitcher was also necessary for the 1868 season. They set their sights on the best there was outside of New York: a flame-throwing Dutchman named Rynie Wolters.

WOLTERS IN, MARTIN OUT, AND VAN ALST’S NO-HITTER

In 1868, Reinder Albertus “Rynie” Wolters was rated by the Brooklyn Eagle as one of the three best swift pitchers in the entire country.20 He had become an overnight sensation early in the 1866 season when he pitched for the fledging Irvington Club of New Jersey, based just outside of Newark, to a 23–17 victory against the Atlantics. It was the latter club’s first loss in more than two years, a run that featured multiple home-and-home sweeps against their strongest competition.

In March of 1868, the newspapers began to link Wolters to the Mutuals. These rumors sparked a lot of intense discussion. For one, who was going to be the regular starting pitcher and who would be the change between Wolters and Phonney Martin? The Brooklyn Union reported on March 24 that the majority of the Mutuals favored Wolters in the starting role. The newspaper, unsurprisingly, argued that Martin should instead be the regular starter. The Union framed their argument as a tactical one. They argued that it was easier to hit a slow pitcher after seeing a swift pitcher than vice versa. “[T]he change of pitching from swift to slow, with confident men at the bat, would lose half the effect that a reverse change would have under the circumstance of a change from slow to swift.”21

The other issue with starting Wolters, the Union claimed, was that his swifts required the Mutuals to get a new catcher. Jewett’s only experience with swift pitching occurred in 1867, when Martin missed over a month after injuring his arm.22 The Mutuals relied on a swift pitcher named Peters during his recovery. Peters and Jewett worked well enough together, even defeating the Athletics in late August, but Jewett’s hands had been ravaged by Peters’ velocity.23 Patsy Dockney was rumored for the swift catcher role opposite Wolters, but then it was reported that Dockney had been stabbed during a brawl in late April.24 It was assumed that even a tough catcher like Dockney would be forced to miss the 1868 season due to his wounds.

The Brooklyn Union confirmed that Wolters had been signed by the Mutuals on May 18.25 NABBP rules stated that a player could not appear for their new club within the first 30 days of signing, so in consequence, Wolters was deemed unavailable for the Mutuals’ first match of the season against the Mohawk Club nine days later, and Martin was named the starting pitcher. He held the Mohawks to five runs, a pittance for this era. “The Mohawk boys are skilled in batting against swift pitching,” wrote the next day’s Brooklyn Union, perhaps to help Martin secure the regular job, “(but) they found Martin’s medium paced balls so difficult to hit.” The paper continued, “We feel confident that (the Mohawks) would have punished Walters (sp) for three times the score they made by Martin.”26 Martin received top-flight support from Jewett, who made an eye-popping 13 putouts, all of them foul tips and pop flies.27

Twenty-four hours later, the Union reported that Martin had resigned from the Mutuals.28 It was a sudden and possibly impulsive resignation. Publicly, Martin gave no reason for his departure. It is fair to assume that Wolters was going to start the season as the Mutuals’ regular pitcher and that Martin, who had an ego and was known to make boastful comments from the pitcher’s box mid-game, did not want to be a designated change pitcher.29

The following news was even more of a surprise. On June 3 the Brooklyn Daily Times reported that Martin had joined the Eckford Club. After having their talent raided, Eckford had been the club to lure a star rival. Martin’s acquisition gave the Eckfords the perception of being serious title contenders for the first time since the 1863 season. “[Martin] is one of the most successful pitchers of all the pitchists,” wrote the Daily Times, “and will be a power in building up the Eckfords.”30

Two days later, on June 5, the Eckford season opened with a match against the Athletic Club of South Brooklyn. Of course, Martin was still within his 30-day acquisition window. In his stead, the Eckford Club put out George Van Alst to pitch. Van Alst is a truly obscure historical figure. He was a 19-year-old firefighter who lived with his widowed mother and seven siblings.31 His first club, the Ravenswood of Astoria, Queens, was so unheralded that Marshall Wright did not include them in his comprehensive reference book, The National Association of Base Ball Players, 1857–1870.

If you relied solely on the tone of the next day’s newspapers, the Eckford-Athletic game was a dud. The New York Daily Herald dedicated only one paragraph to the game and concluded by writing, “The score of the game was 60 to 3 in favor of the Eckford. That’s all.”32 Thankfully, the Brooklyn Union provided a full account of the game, and because of their story, we know that Van Alst achieved something special: George Van Alst, the anonymous hurler from Queens, threw the first no-hitter in the history of organized baseball. “The Athletics were not entitled to a single run in the game, and did not score a single base on a hit.”33 The box score confirmed.

What immediately followed was even more extra-ordinary. The beaten Athletic Club filed a complaint with the NABBP disciplinary committee, claiming that Van Alst had also been acquired by the Eckfords within 30 days of playing his first match, and therefore he was ineligible to pitch, and the Eckford win should be vacated. The committee agreed with the Athletics.34 The Eckford win was vacated, and George Van Alst was forced to return to the Ravenswood Club.35 Van Alst never made another appearance for a first-rate club.

EARLY SEASON UPSETS AND CHAMPIONSHIP MOVEMENT

More early season surprises were in store for the contenders. The Unions agreed to a tune-up match with Yale University’s baseball club on June 6 and came perilously close to an embarrassing loss, needing 10 innings to escape with a 16–14 win. The Atlantic Club were not as lucky. On June 16, they lost to the unknown Niagara Club of Buffalo, 19–15. Catcher Charley Mills did not have an impact on the game, as most of the work fell to Joe Start and his 14 putouts at first base.36 If there was any consolation, it was that the Atlantics’ change pitching theory succeeded in practice. Most of the runs were scored off Zettlein early on. Once Pratt came in, he was able to stop the bleeding and give the Atlantic Club a chance for a comeback. “Pratt pitched splendidly,” said the June 17 Daily Herald.37

Meanwhile, the Eckford Club’s starting catcher, Ward (first name unknown), was poached by the Nationals of Washington, DC.38 Eckford then called up Charlie Hodes from their second nine to replace him. Hodes debuted in the rematch against the Athletics of South Brooklyn on June 23 and earned a complimentary review from the Brooklyn Union. Paired with Malone, Hodes “did credit both to the position of catcher and the club.”39 The Eckfords won the rematch, 29–11, with Malone holding the Athletics hitless for five innings.

While the Unions and Atlantics went on their western tours of the country, the Mutual and Eckford clubs had stayed in New York to begin their home-and-home series. The June 28 New York Daily Herald billed it “The most important game of the season, thus far.”40 Adding to the excitement, Phonney Martin was now eligible to pitch for his new club. “Martin will pitch for the Eckfords and their nine will be very strong and well posted,” the paper continued, “[t]he Mutuals can put their nine men in the field that should ‘rake’ everything.”41 The Mutual Club had their own new signing to show off. Mahlon Stockman had earned a reputation as the best fielding shortstop in the country.42 He joined the Mutuals in time to be eligible for the Eckford match.

The much-anticipated battle between Martin and the Mutuals was nearly called off on the day of the game. Martin received word that a close friend had died unexpectedly, and he considered not playing due to bereavement. The crowd had to encourage Martin to stand in the pitcher’s box, which he finally agreed to.43 Martin pitched well in the early frames and the Eckford led 9–3 after three innings. In the fourth and fifth innings, however, the Mutuals began to hit him heavily. They put together a 13-run outburst that chased Martin out of the pitcher’s box after the conclusion of the fifth. The Eckfords brought in pitcher Martin Malone from right field, who held the Mutuals to three runs the rest of the way, but the Mutuals had already done enough to earn their 19–14 victory. Nat Jewett caught for Wolters and performed well, making nine total putouts on four foul bounds and five pop flies.44

Malone’s change appearance was strong enough that the Eckfords started him for their first home-and-home match against the Atlantics on July 16. The Atlantics had just returned from their western tour, where they had shaken off the upset loss from the Niagara Club and won every other game on their trip. Now well-practiced, the Atlantic Club jumped all over Malone in the first inning and scored 16 runs. Martin came in to pitch the rest of the game for the Eckfords, “and by the deceptive slows” he was able to hold the Atlantic Club to single digit run totals until the ninth inning, when he allowed 14 more for a final score of 55–11.45 Hodes was unavailable due to an unspecified “accident,” so Courtney caught for the Eckfords. It was the first time Martin and Courtney had worked together.46 “Courtney did remarkably well,” wrote the Daily Times on June 17, but continued “Hodes’ absence was missed [sic], as balls were muffed by the former that the latter would have secured.”47 In contrast, George Zettlein had an excellent game for the Atlantics. The only Eckford batter who managed his velocity was shortstop Jack Nelson, who hit safely in his every at-bat.

Meanwhile, Wolters and Jewett of the Mutuals combined to have one of the greatest games a battery had on record in the NABBP era in a decisive 41–14 win over the Irvington Club on July 24. Wolters recorded 12 strikeouts, an astronomical number for the period. It’s such a large number that a modern historian might be tempted to dismiss it as a reporting error, except the New York Tribune provided a full breakdown: William Lewis, Hugh Campbell, and George Eaton each struck out once. Thomas Buckley struck out twice, Alexander Bailey three times, and Beanes, the Irvington’s second baseman, struck out four times in what was possibly the first “golden sombrero” in competitive baseball history.48 Jewett caught nine strikeouts cleanly and put out two more men as they ran to first. Only Lewis managed to get to first base on a dropped third strike. Jewett also recorded three more outs on foul bound catches. The Wolters-Jewett combo combined for 14 of the Mutuals’ 27 putouts.49

Despite this excellent showing, the Wolters-Jewett battery were still getting comfortable with one another. After a 27–5 victory against the Olympic Club of Philadelphia on July 29, with Jewett recording 11 foul putouts, the Brooklyn Daily Times noted that Wolters did not pitch at his ”full speed” until the late innings.50 This suggests that Jewett was still adjusting to swift velocity; it also suggests that Wolters may have been holding something back in his incredible outing against the Irvington Club.

If Wolters had indeed waited until the end of July to throw at full speed, the Mutuals’ early August proved that his trepidation was warranted. On August 4 the Mutuals lost 22–12 to the Haymakers of Troy, NY. Wolters and Jewett had their worst game as a battery, with 13 passed balls charged to them.51 They collected themselves and won their return match with the Irvington Club, 12–7, on August 5; Wolters struck out six and Jewett caught three fouls on the bound.

On August 10, the Mutuals played the Active Club of New York at the Capitoline Grounds. The Mutuals expected an easy victory; in fact, they were so flippant that they arrived at the grounds without their playing uniforms.52 Their hubris cost them an embarrassing 30–16 defeat. The Daily Herald noted that the Wolters-Jewett battery had continued their poor play from the Troy match. “[Wolters] did not deliver the ball with as much vim as usual, and seemed to feel little or no confidence in Jewett’s catching, and with good reason, for the latter’s services behind the bat were poor in the extreme.”53 It seemed that Jewett was having the same issues he had with Peters the previous season. He was fine catching a swift pitcher for a game or two, but the cumulative damage to his hands quickly eroded his skills in the field. It also showed itself at the plate—Jewett had not scored any of the Mutuals last 40 runs. The much-celebrated catcher of slows was unceremoniously demoted from the Mutuals’ first team for his inability to form a productive battery with Wolters.

On August 14 the Mutual and Eckford clubs came together for the second game of their home-and-home, with the Eckfords hoping to even the series after their 19–14 loss from July 3. The Mutuals had recruited a new catcher for their starting nine and, by God, it was Patsy Dockney, who had been stabbed in a bar fight but recovered faster than anybody had anticipated. The atmosphere at the Union Grounds was tense for the contest. The Mutuals cracked under the pressure in the field. “Fly balls were missed…grounders muffed and poor throws, fearfully and wonderfully wild, were made in number,” reported the next day’s Daily Herald, going on to call the Mutuals’ fielding “a display of first class muffinism,” resulting in a 18–12 defeat.54 The Eckford Club, in contrast, played a great game behind Martin. He matched the intensity of the moment, “send[ing] his heart with the ball at each delivery.”55 The Mutual-Eckford home-and-home series required a deciding third match, which was scheduled for September 12.

There was no rest for the weary Mutuals, however. Their next game was three days later against the Atlantic Club. As many as 16,000 were estimated in attendance for the first match in their big home-and-home series.56 It was a low-scoring game with the Atlantics leading 10–3 after six innings. In the seventh inning, catcher Charley Mills snuffed out the embers of a fledgling Mutuals rally by throwing out would-be base stealer Billy McMahon.

Zettlein cruised through eight innings, but the Mutuals staged a frantic ninth inning rally. The rally rattled Zettlein so badly that he fell over twice from the force of his pitching.57 With the tying run on third and two outs, Mutuals second baseman George Flanly hit a fly ball that Jack Chapman caught on a dead sprint to end the game. Both teams combined for only four bound outs and two strikeouts in a 12–11 Atlantic victory.58

The Atlantics and Eckfords met for the second game of their home-and-home series on August 25, with the Atlantics leading the series 1–0. On that occasion, the Atlantics put together a beautiful defensive game, shutting out Eckford Club through the first eight innings of a 14–2 win. Mills contributed two innings’ worth of foul bounds outs, but it was his passed ball that allowed the Eckford to score two runs in the ninth inning.59 Nonetheless, the Atlantics had claimed the first home-and-home series from amongst the four contenders.

The 1868 Atlantics believed they had a claim to the championship title despite not playing in the championship game. (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)

THE CHAMPIONSHIP SEASON

The Unions of Morrisania, the defending champions throughout our entire narrative to this point, had been out of town on their two-month western excursion. Their tour was far longer than any of their other opponents. (Especially the Eckford Club, which did not tour at all in 1868.) When the Unions finally returned to New York in early September, the championship season finally began in earnest.

The Atlantic Club scheduled the first challenge match against the Unions on September 10. The crowd was packed tightly together like “sardines in a box or a Third avenue car at six o’clock in the evening.”60 Both pitchers—Pabor of the Unions and Zettlein of the Atlantics—both received good backing from their fielders early on. Birdsall picked off first baseman Joe Start to close out the bottom of the first inning, while Start got his revenge in the top of the second by way of “a pretty foul-bound catch.” (Any fielder could record a foul bound out, but catchers had the most opportunities and their plays required the most skill).61

The top of the sixth inning began with the Atlantics nursing a 7–4 lead. Union third baseman Ed Shelly led off the inning and struck Zettlein’s swift offering back from whence it came. The ball struck Zettlein in the forehead and ricocheted some sixty feet away.62 The Brooklyn Union, unable to resist a chance to critique Zettlein, commented that “many considered this a pretty harsh plan of knocking ‘head work’ into him.”63 However, that was exactly what happened. The now-groggy Zettlein, who stayed in the game after pausing a moment to take a drink, was forced to slow down his pitching.64 The Unions, who were unprepared for anything other than Zettlein’s swiftest throws, did not score a single run in the final three innings after Zettlein’s injury. A likely concussed Zettlein had pitched the Atlantics to a 31–7 victory and a 1–0 series lead against the defending champion Unions. The Brooklyn Eagle wrote a blurb on September 12, affectionally titled “The Hardest Headed Man in Brooklyn,” in which they wrote, “[Zettlein] thinks he has developed a new style of play, that is stopping balls with his head. He says when he has practiced it a little more he will be more successful.”65

ELIMINATING THE ECKFORDS

The Mutuals and Eckfords were the first clubs to complete their home-and-home series for 1868. Phonney Martin was unavailable due to illness. Eckford put in Sam Davenport, a pitcher they had acquired from the Mohawk Club. The Mutuals knocked Davenport around for 10 runs before the Eckfords changed to Malone. In a familiar pattern, the Eckfords change pitcher was able to slow the Mutuals offense, but the damage was done. The Mutuals won 23–16 to take the series. The Eagle credited Patsy Dockney with “the best catching that he has done since he has been in the Mutual Club.”66

The Eckfords were all but eliminated by late September. By losing their home-and-home series’ to the Atlantics and Mutuals, the Eckfords would not have claim to the championship even if they beat the Unions. The Union disposed of them easily in their first match on September 18, scoring 27 runs in the first two innings on their way to a 42–26 win. Phonney Martin gave up five home runs and Charlie Hodes only made three foul bound catches.67 Four days later the Atlantic Club defeated them for the third time, 48–11. The Eckford started yet another new catcher, named Holmes. The September 23 Daily Herald reported that he “acquitted himself creditably,” but he only managed a single foul bound catch before Eckford replaced him with their regular first baseman, Andy Allison.68

Even if the Eckford Club had rallied and won their next two matches with the Union, it would have been irrelevant; the Eckford lost their claim to the championship when they lost to the Mutuals and Atlantics. That was because 1860s baseball put a lot of faith in the transitive property. Since Atlantic and Mutual clubs both beat the Eckford, then had the Eckford beat the Union, that gave the Atlantic and Mutual clubs the strongest claim to the title. If it seems convoluted, that’s because it is. You’ll see another example of that later.

Turnover hamstrung the Eckfords all season. Martin, who had one catcher for three straight seasons, went through four in his first Eckford season. These catchers could not support Martin with the defensive plays he needed to be effective. The Eagle prescribed the Eckford Club “with that habit they have of failing when everybody expects them to do well.”69

DOWN TO THE WIRE

On September 15 the Unions and Mutuals began their home-and-home series. Mutuals pitcher Rynie Wolters struck out four to Charlie Pabor’s zero and Mutuals catcher Patsy Dockney caught seven bound outs to Dave Birdsall’s three. The star of the game was not either battery, however, but Union shortstop George Wright. Wright hit three home runs, two of them in the seventh inning, to pace the Union offense in a 28–12 victory.70 The Unions were still on the back foot against the Atlantic Club but they now had control of the Mutual series. The Mutuals, meanwhile, could not lose another game against either club or, by the transitive property, they would no longer have a claim to the title.

The Union and Atlantic clubs played their second match on October 5. The Unions held a 5–0 lead after two innings, but the champions were then whitewashed from innings three through seven while the Atlantic Club tallied 18 runs. Both batteries were highlighted in coverage of the game. “The pitching and catching of Zettlein and Mills was a modest display,” wrote the Brooklyn Union, “Mills’ play being tip-top throughout, while [Zettlein] showed more judgment and skill in his position than in any previous game this year.”71 The Union battery, meanwhile, were taken to task by the Daily Herald. “Pabor’s pitching was very weak, and the Atlantics batted well and freely,” they wrote, then went on to also charge Dave Birdsall with “a number of passed balls.”72 George Wright came on to pitch the final three innings but fared no better than Pabor. Birdsall was charged with 10 errors compared to Mills’s five.73 By the final score of 24–8, the Atlantic Club reclaimed the championship in just two games.

The focus was now on second match in the Atlantic-Mutual series, scheduled for October 12. In the days before the match, Nat Jewett began to work his way back into the starting nine. He featured in right field, with Dockney at catcher, for a tune-up match against the Oriental Club of New York on October 10 and hit a home run.74 Jewett’s performance earned him the start in right field on October 12.

Tom Pratt, meanwhile, had again abandoned the Atlantics like he had in 1866. This time, he joined up with the Tri-Mountain Club in Massachusetts as their second baseman.75 Zettlein’s change pitcher was now outfielder Jack Chapman, who was a change pitcher in the traditional sense and thus not well-practiced. Worse yet, Chapman was a slow pitcher whereas both Zettlein and Pratt were swifts. Mills did not have any notable experience as a catcher of slows.

The first batter of the game, Dickey Pearce, hit a comebacker that struck Wolters in the leg.76 The incident paled in comparison to Zettlein’s against the Unions, but Wolters admirably shook off his injury regardless. The third inning started with the Mutuals ahead 7–2. Two wild pitches from Wolters and a passed ball by Dockney allowed three Atlantic runs to score, while Zettlein shut out the Mutuals in the bottom half to put the score at 7–5.77

In the fourth, Wolters struck out the first batter, Dan McDonald, but a dropped third strike and an error from Dockney on the throw allowed McDonald to reach first, and he eventually came around to score. The Atlantics scored two more runs before Dockney ended the inning on a caught foul tip, stranding a runner on third. Dockney had the favor repaid to him in the bottom half of the inning, when he made the third out on a foul tip caught by Charley Mills. Mills caught another foul tip to end the fifth inning, this time with the bases loaded. The top of the sixth ended with yet another foul tip out, Dockney putting out Ferguson.

In the top of the eighth, with the Mutuals guarding a 22–16 lead, Dockney and Jewett switched positions. Jewett did not have much of an effect on the game, but his return to catcher in the biggest moment of the Mutuals’ season showed that the club still held him in high esteem despite his rocky August. The Mutuals held on for a 25–22 win. Mills only recorded two foul tip outs, but they both ended innings and stranded four runners total. Dockney caught four foul tips but those plays only stranded two runners. Wolters recorded three strikeouts and Zettlein had none.78

The third match was originally scheduled for October 19, but the match was canceled because of rain.79 Instead the two clubs met on the following Monday, October 26, to determine the championship. The Mutuals decided to start Jewett at catcher and moved Dockney to right field. The game was 7–3 to the Mutuals after four innings, with no putouts recorded by either battery.80 In the top of the fifth Wolters and Jewett were charged with four passed balls, two walks, and a wild pitch; all conspired to allow four runs, tying the game at 7–7. The Mutuals scored one run in the bottom of the inning, but Jewett stranded a runner on third when he foul tipped to Mills for the third out.

Jewett opened the sixth by putting out Joe Start on a foul tip, then got a measure of revenge on Mills by putting him out on a foul tip for the second out. The next batter, Ferguson, hit a high pop up behind the plate. “Everyone was sure [Jewett] would catch it,” the Clipper wrote, “but he missed it.”81 Ferguson took advantage of the extra chance and hit a double. Jewett was directed by the Mutuals captain (presumably Billy McMahon) to play close to the plate as Zettlein took his turn at bat.82 Zettlein struck two foul tips, both plays that the Clipper believed Jewett would have made had he been standing further back, but he was unable to hold either.83 Jewett was then told to move back. Ferguson promptly stole third base. Zettlein drove Ferguson home with a double, and McDonald drove both Zettlein and himself home via a home run partially credited to a misplay by Dockney in right field.84 The three extra runs put the score at 12–8.

The Mutuals opened their half of the sixth with five straight hits, forcing the Atlantics to change pitchers. Jack Chapman came in from left field and allowed an additional four runs, aided in part by Zettlein’s error on a fly ball to his new post in left field.85 The change to Chapman also put Mills at a disadvantage, for he had difficulty with Chapman’s slows.86 The Mutuals were now up 17–12. Would the inning have gone better had Pratt been available instead of Chapman? It’s impossible to say, but Chapman’s turn went poorly enough that he and Zettlein changed places again for the remainder of the game. The Atlantics went out one-two-three in the seventh, the final out being made on “a foul fly near the scoring table [that] was taken beautifully by Jewett.”87 The Atlantic whitewash effectively ended the game. The Mutuals cruised to a 28–17 final score. For the first time ever, the pennant was headed to New York. “After years of vain endeavors, after lavish expenditures of money to no purpose, after the formation of nine after nine,” wrote the Eagle, “after the employment of every means in their power only to be disappointed as the cold season drew nigh, the Mutuals have attained the end and purpose of their organization.”88

Alas, it was a law of nature that the NABBP championship season must end in controversy, and so it went on October 28, when the Mutuals lost their rubber match to the Union Club, 27–21. The Mutuals and their supporters claimed that their championship series’s reset after they won the title, and so they had only lost the first match of a new best-of-three. The Unions pointed out that they had won two-out-of-three within the season, and so they should be considered champions. The Atlantics then issued their own claim to the title, reasoning that since they had already defeated the Union Club twice, then by the transitive property, they should be declared champions.89 “[A]s the season is now so far advanced, the settlement [of the championship] will probably have to go until next season,” concluded the Eagle.90 The National Association was founded in part due to a similar controversy that ended the 1870 season.

DAVID RADER is an amateur writer, fledgling historian, and volunteer booster for Joe Start’s Hall of Fame candidacy. He invites you to follow him on Bluesky, @JoeStart4HoF.bksy.social. Go Go White Sox.

Notes

1. John Thorn, “Jim Creighton,” SABR BioProject. Accessed May 5, 2025. http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/jim-creighton/.

2. Thorn, “Jim Creighton.”

3. “The Veterans of Our National Game,” New York Clipper, May 1, 1869, 29.

4. “Delivering the Ball to the Bat,” New York Clipper, April 20, 1872, 21.

5. “Grand Match at Williamsburg—Mutual of New York vs. Eckford of Brooklyn—The Eckford Again Victorious,” Brooklyn Eagle, October 7, 1863, 2.

6. “The Star Grounds—The Working of the New Rules,” Brooklyn Eagle, April 19, 1864, 2.

7. “The National Game,” Brooklyn Union, May 31, 1867, 4.

8. “Gotham Club,” The Book of American Pastimes: Containing a History of the Principal Base Ball, Cricket, Rowing, and Yachting Clubs of the United States (American News Co., 1868), 357.

9. “The Professionals of 1870. Review No. 2,” New York Clipper, January 28, 1871, 341.

10. “The Professionals of 1870. Review, No. 4,” New York Clipper, February 11, 1871, 357.

11. “The Ball Season of 1868,” New York Tribune, March 25, 1868, 2.

12. “Atlantic vs. Eureka,” Brooklyn Union, August 15, 1866, 4.

13. “The Sporting World—An Eastern Estimate of Zettlein as Pitcher,” Chicago Tribune, February 10, 1871, 4.

14. “Our National Game,” Brooklyn Union, August 20, 1866, 4.

15. “The Approaching Season—Sketches of Noted Players,” New York Clipper, March 27, 1869, 403.

16. “The Professionals of 1870. Review No. 1,” New York Clipper, January 21, 1871, 333.

17. “Another Great Base Ball Match,” Brooklyn Eagle, September 19, 1867, 2.

18. “The Approaching Season—Sketches of Noted Players,” 403.

19. “The Professionals of 1870, Review No. 2,” 341.

20. “Atlantic vs. Mutual—Statistics Concerning the Nines Which Are to Play at Monday Next,” Brooklyn Eagle, August 15, 1868, 2.

21. “The Mutual Club and Their Nine for 1868,” Brooklyn Union, March 24, 1868, 4.

22. Martin sprained his arm in a match against the Eckford club on July 3, 1867. “Mutual vs. Eckford,” Brooklyn Union, July 6, 1867, 4.

23. “Mutual vs. Irvington,” New York Daily Herald, September 5, 1867, 5.

24. “A Base Ball Player Stabbed,” Brooklyn Union, May 1, 1868, 1.

25. “The Mutual Club,” Brooklyn Union, May 18, 1868, 1.

26. “Mutual vs. Mohawk,” Brooklyn Union, May 28, 1868, 4.

27. “Base Ball Items,” Brooklyn Daily Times, May 28, 1868, 2.

28. Untitled, Brooklyn Union, May 29, 1868, 1.

29. “The Professionals of 1870, Review No. 3,” New York Clipper, February 4, 1870, 348.

30. “Base Ball Items,” Brooklyn Daily Times, June 3, 1868, 3.

31. The National Archives of Washington D.C.; Record Group: Records of the Bureau of the Census; Record Group Number: 29; Series Number: M653; Residence Date: 1860; Home in 1860: Newtown, Queens, New York; Roll: M653_843; 779; Family History Library Film: 803843.

32. “Eckford vs. Athletic, of Brooklyn,” New York Daily Herald, June 6, 1868, 7.

33. “Eckford vs. Athletic,” Brooklyn Union, June 6, 1868, 1.

34. “Base Ball,” Brooklyn Union, June 24, 1868, 2.

35. “Base Ball Items,” Brooklyn Daily Times, June 29, 1868, 3.

36. “Base Ball Items,” Brooklyn Daily Times, June 18, 1868, 2.

37. “Base Ball Notes,” New York Daily Herald, June 17, 1868, 7.

38. “Base Ball Items,” Brooklyn Daily Times, June 24, 1868, 3.

39. “Base Ball,” Brooklyn Union, June 24, 1868, 2.

40. “Base Ball Notes,” New York Daily Herald, June 28, 1868, 3.

41. “Base Ball Notes,” New York Daily Herald, June 28, 1868, 3.

42. “Atlantic vs. Mutual—Statistics Concerning the Nines Which Are to Play at Monday Next,” 2.

43. “Mutual vs. Eckford,” New York Tribune, July 4, 1868, 3.

44. “Mutual vs. Eckford,” 3.

45. “Eckford vs. Atlantic,” Brooklyn Eagle, July 17, 1868, 3.

46. “The Grand Match Yesterday,” Brooklyn Union, July 17, 1868, 1.

47. “Base Ball Item.,” Brooklyn Daily Times, July 17, 1868, 3.

48. “Mutual vs. Irvington,” New York Tribune, July 25, 1868, 8.

49. “Mutual vs. Irvington,” 8.

50. “Base Ball Items,” Brooklyn Daily Times, July 30, 1868, 3.

51. “The Game of Base Ball Yesterday—Haymakers vs. Mutual,” Troy Daily Times, August 5, 1868, 3.

52. “Active vs. Mutual—Defeat of the Mutuals,” Brooklyn Eagle, August 11, 1868, 2.

53. “Active vs. Mutual,” New York Daily Herald, August 11, 1868, 9.

54. “Mutual vs. Eckford,” New York Daily Herald, August 15, 1868, 8.

55. “Mutual vs. Eckford,” 8.

56. “Mutual vs. Atlantic,” Spirit of the Times, August 22, 1868, 7.

57. “Mutual vs. Atlantic,” 7.

58. “Mutual vs. Atlantic,” 7.

59. “Atlantic vs. Eckford,” Brooklyn Eagle, August 26, 1868, 2.

60. “Atlantic vs. Union—First Grand Match for the Championship—The Champions Defeated.,” New York Daily Herald, September 11, 1868, 10.

61. “The Grand Contest Yesterday,” Brooklyn Union, September 11, 1868, 1.

62. “The Sporting World—An Eastern Estimate of Zettlein as Pitcher,” 4.

63. “The Grand Contest Yesterday,” Brooklyn Union, September 11, 1868, 1.

64. “The Sporting World—An Eastern Estimate of Zettlein as Pitcher,” 4.

65. “The Hardest Headed Man in Brooklyn,” Brooklyn Eagle, September 12, 1868, 2.

66. “Mutual vs. Eckford,” Brooklyn Eagle, September 14, 1868, 2.

67. “Eckford vs. Union,” Brooklyn Eagle, September 19, 1868, 2.

68. “Eckford vs. Atlantic,” New York Daily Herald, September 23, 1868, 3.

69. “Eckford vs. Union,” Brooklyn Eagle, September 19, 1868, 2.

70. “Mutual vs. Union,” New York Clipper, September 26, 1868, 197.

71. “The Grand Match at Tremont.,” Brooklyn Union, October 7, 1868, 1.

72. “Atlantic vs. Union—Grand Match for the Championship—The Champions Defeated,” New York Daily Herald, October 7, 1868, 7.

73. “Atlantic vs. Union—Grand Match for the Championship—The Champions Defeated,” 7.

74. “Mutual vs. Oriental, of New York,” New York Daily Herald, October 11, 1868, 8.

75. “Sketches of Noted Players,” New York Clipper, April 3, 1869, 413.

76. “The Championship,” New York Clipper, October 17, 1868, 218.

77. “The Championship,” 218.

78. “The Championship,” 218.

79. “Base Ball,” Brooklyn Daily Times, October 20, 1868, 2.

80. “The Championship,” New York Clipper, October 31, 1868, 234.

81. “The Championship,” 234.

82. “The Championship,” 234.

83. “The Championship,” 234.

84. “The Championship,” 234.

85. “The Championship,” 234.

86. “The Approaching Season—Sketches of Noted Players,” 403.

87. “The Championship,” 234.

88. “Atlantic vs. Mutual,” Brooklyn Eagle, October 27, 1868, 3.

89. There was precedent for the “transitive property” argument. The Atlantics were declared champions in 1864 by virtue of defeating the Mutuals, who had defeated the champion Eckfords.

90. “Base Ball.,” Brooklyn Eagle, October 30, 1868, 2.

This article examines AA and NL parity by analyzing the results of preseason and postseason interleague games, of which there were many. The focus is on the five-year “middle” period of the AA’s existence, 1885–89, when parity was most likely to have existed. The principal source for identifying games is the New York Clipper, a national weekly newspaper with complete coverage of major league baseball including scores of all individual games.1 Critically, preseason and postseason exhibition results are reported, in addition to regular-season championship games.

We first present the relevant historical background of the AA and major league baseball in general in the 1880s and early 1890s. The second section discusses the analytical approach, including the use of exhibition game results for that purpose. Next we present the results of our interleague AA-NL comparisons, first at the aggregate level, then for individual clubs in both the AA and NL. The last section presents a summary and conclusions. We find that the evidence is consistent with AA-NL parity for the five-year period 1885–89.

The Louisville Colonels played in the American Association for the entirety of its existence, from 1882 to 1891. (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)

BACKGROUND

The AA’s ten-year life can be split into three periods: initial: 1882–84; middle: 1885–89; and final: 1890–91. The AA began with six teams in 1882, expanding to eight the next year, and then to twelve in 1884. For its remaining seven years, the AA was an eight club circuit. It was an immediate threat to the NL, as its six charter cities had an average population of 375,328, almost twice the NL’s average of 189,692 for its eight member cities.2 After its successful first season, in 1883 the AA joined with the NL in the so-called Tripartite Agreement, along with the minor Northwestern League. It outlined various areas of interleague cooperation primarily for the purpose of mutual player contract recognition, and it was the first such agreement. In effect, with the Tripartite Agreement the NL conceded the AA’s major league status, constituting the first such “official” recognition. In 1884 it was renamed the “National Agreement” as it came to include more than one minor league.

The AA’s initial period mainly involved “getting up to speed” as a start-up major league. In 1882 and 1883, the NL still dominated the market for top players.3 AA clubs were therefore staffed mainly with NL retreads and players from minor league and independent clubs. The result was a lack of parity as demonstrated by NL dominance in interleague play. For example, in 1882 the AA lost all 21 preseason exhibition games against NL clubs.4 As David Nemec put it in his definitive history of the AA: “[in 1882] Association clubs… were no match as yet for established League clubs.”5 In 1883, the AA fared only slightly better, winning only four of 31 preseason games against the NL, a .129 winning average.6

The third year of the initial period, 1884, was aptly called “baseball’s wildest season” by historian William J. Ryczek.7 It was filled with turmoil caused by the entry of a third major league: the one-and-done Union Association. Ryczek notes that there were a total of 34 teams in the three leagues at various times, including several mid-season club failures, replacements, and relocations. The AA was part of the chaos, expanding to 12 members in 1884, plus a mid-season replacement for a failed club.8 The circumstances were hardly propitious for parity comparisons.

The AA’s final period began in 1890 with the entry of another one-and-done major league: the Players League (PL). It was the creation of the players’ union, The Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players, that was founded a few years earlier. Many observers consider it to be the strongest of the three majors that season, followed by the NL with the AA third. Unlike the Union Association of 1884, the PL was able to attract many top players from both the NL and AA. As Matt Albertson noted: “the Players League certainly had the best players in the country signed to contracts.”9 For example, when the 1890 season began, PL rosters included 107 1889 major leaguers, the NL had 63, and the AA only 36.10

For the AA, the establishment of the PL was a disaster.11 First, on November 14, 1889, the NL poached two of the AA’s best teams in preparation for the upcoming “war” against the PL: Brooklyn and Cincinatti. Brooklyn had finished first in the 1889 AA, and Cincinnati fourth. They replaced the NL’s two weakest clubs, Indianapolis and Washington, that in 1889 were the bottom two teams in the league. This unilateral act by the NL threatened the league’s viability and signaled that henceforth it was to be “every man for himself,” thereby rendering the then-existing cooperative National Agreement a dead letter.

To add insult to injury, the next day AA member Kansas City decamped to the minor Western League. Last, Baltimore resigned on November 29, later joining the minor Atlantic Association for 1890.12 Now down to only four clubs of the previous eight, the AA was desperate to expand its membership. It recruited three minor league teams from Rochester, Syracuse, and Toledo for 1890. A new start-up club was also added in Brooklyn, replacing the AA’s 1889 Brooklyn entry. While this restored the league to eight members, the AA’s new Brooklyn club was forced to compete with the NL’s recently recruited Brooklyn team, the previous year’s AA champion, and the Player’s League Brooklyn club. The net result was a considerably weaker lineup that included two second division 1889 AA clubs, three minor league 1889 clubs, and one de novo startup. As Harold Seymour put it, after this realignment, “the association [AA] could hardly claim major-league status.”13

Nevertheless, the AA was able to soldier through the 1890 season, albeit with two mid-season failures. First, the new Brooklyn entry went under on August 25 and was immediately replaced by the same Baltimore club that had left the AA nine months earlier.14 Next, the Athletic club of Philadelphia went bankrupt in early September. It was reorganized with a rag-tag assortment of low-end players, which finished the season by losing all 21 remaining games.15 It was then expelled from the AA in November.16 The 1890 championship was won by the same Louisville club that in the previous season had finished last.

For 1891, the AA was revamped…again. Clubs were added from Boston, Cincinnati, and Washington that replaced the three small market minor league “fill-ins” from 1890, plus a new Philadelphia franchise that replaced the expelled club.17 The new Boston and Philadelphia clubs had been members of the PL. Again, there was a mid-season failure, with Cincinnati replaced by the minor league Milwaukee club late in the season.

The key circumstance of the 1891 season for our purposes was that the AA was outside the newly reconstituted National Agreement. As before, it was a cooperative arrangement organized by the NL for contract protection that now included the minor Western Association. The AA originally joined but withdrew in February 1891, choosing instead to be an “outlaw” because of disputes with the NL. The main contention involved the reservation and allocation of players that had been on AA or NL clubs in 1889 but who had jumped to the PL.18 As such, the AA was blacklisted from playing games with National Agreement participants, and so in 1891 it had no preseason or postseason exhibition games with the NL.

In 1892, the AA merged with the NL although, given its weakened position, it would be more accurate to say that it was absorbed.19 Four AA clubs joined the eight NL teams to form a new 12-club organization with the remaining AA members paid to go “quietly into the night.” The former AA clubs finished 1892 at the bottom of the standings, occupying positions nine through 12. Although the Baltimore Orioles later gained fame with a highly successful run for the remainder of its NL membership, the other three AA “refugees” were tail-enders until the NL’s contraction in 1900. As Nemec put it: “so dreadful did the other three Association teams remain throughout the 1890s that it became hard to argue that the [National] League had not been superior all along.”20 We’ll now turn to addressing the truth of that statement.

PLAYING FIELD PARITY

We focus on interleague playing-field parity, i.e., whether teams in the two leagues were, on average, evenly matched in interleague play. This can be measured directly by performance in interleague games where wins and losses can be observed. Related concepts are parity of player quality and parity of overall play, i.e., are players and teams overall simply better in one league than the other. But both of these concepts have implications for wins and losses: if one league has better players and/or teams then, virtually by definition, its teams will win more often in interleague play. Thus, a “bottom-line” measure is win-loss records: parity means winning averages near .500 for both leagues in interleague play.

Playing-field parity between the AA and NL is examined by reviewing the results of preseason and postseason exhibition games involving clubs from the two leagues. We focus on the middle five years of the AA’s ten year existence: 1885–89. As noted above, this is the only period when parity might have existed and can be effectively evaluated. There were well over 300 such games, including the post-season World’s Championship Series that took place in each year under study. This is certainly a large enough sample to address the parity question.

The ideal situation for this analysis would have been each team in both leagues annually playing an equal number of games against every team. But, of course, nothing close to this ever happened. Exhibitions were arranged to attract fans and minimize travel cost, which often meant games between “natural rivals.” Examples included the Athletic (AA) and Philadelphia (NL) clubs (58 games); the Browns (AA) and Maroons (NL) of St. Louis (23 games); the Brooklyns and Metropolitans (AA) and the New Yorks (NL) (18 and 12 games, respectively); and the Baltimores (AA) and Washingtons (NL) (16 games). In fact, only a few times in any year did a team play all members of the other league. For example, the six AA clubs that were members for at least four years during 1885–89 averaged 6.2 NL opponents per year rather than eight, and the six NL clubs meeting the same criterion averaged only 4.3 AA opponents per year. Nevertheless, the large number of games actually played allows a reasonable, albeit imperfect, comparison.

Exhibition games, of course, differ from regular season championship games in that they do not impact the championship standings. Thus, at least some regular players may be less motivated. Also, regulars are more likely to be benched to recuperate from injuries or to simply rest. And these games provide an opportunity to test new players and give backups some playing time.21 All of these factors suggest that there may be less talent actually displayed on the field than during the championship season. Thus, exhibitions may not reflect a team’s full competitive capability.

On the other hand, given the significant number of these games over an extended period of several years, fans were apparently continuing to buy tickets. That implies that they viewed the games as something worth paying to see. As Scott Simkus put it: “exhibition games…must have been lucrative, otherwise [clubs] wouldn’t have booked them. …clubs would have had to put on a good show. Losing, especially as the result of lackadaisical play, is not a good show” (emphasis in the original).22 In addition, unexpected losses to inferior teams could damage brand names and raise concerns about “hippodroming,” i.e., games thrown to benefit gamblers.

There is no reason to think these issues regarding exhibitions, positive or negative, would be generally more prevalent in one league than the other. In other words, with our sizable sample, the overall impact on our between-league comparisons should be “a wash.” In technical terms, they should generate no statistical bias that might systematically impact the league average results, although they might increase the variance.

While playing field parity during the AA’s middle years is an unresolved question, there is general agreement among historians that the NL was superior regarding leadership and overall league management throughout the AA’s existence. It was the shortcomings in these areas that most likely led to the above-noted 1890 debacle and the AA’s ultimate downfall.23 Nevertheless, during 1885–89, the AA lineup was relatively more stable. It had six clubs that were members for all five years, while the NL had only four. In total, the AA had 11 different clubs during the period, while the NL had 13 (see below).

AA vs. NL EXHIBITION GAME RESULTS

Table 1 summarizes the aggregate results of AA vs. NL preseason and postseason exhibitions annually from 1885 to 1889. The top panel shows the five-year totals and the other five panels show the year-by-year results. These data include the end-of-season World’s Championship Series (WCS) that occurred each year. The WCS was not an official event sanctioned by the two leagues, but instead was bilaterally arranged between the two league champion clubs after the conclusion of the season on an ad hoc basis, like exhibition games. While it was generally expected to occur, it was not mandated and there was no fixed format for the series, including dates, number of games, or their location. Thus, it did not have the status or legitimacy enjoyed by the MLB World Series of today.

Our full sample consists of 354 exhibition games during the five years in question, including 44 WCS games, an average of 70.8 per year. The annual number varied from 58 (1888) to 81 (1887). There was a roughly even split between preseason and postseason games during 1885–87, then the last two years saw a small relative increase in preseason games. In total, there were 22 more preseason games.

The AA’s overall record versus the NL during 1885–89 was 170 wins, 172 losses, and 12 ties, a winning average of .497. This suggests that the outcome of these games was effectively a coin flip, i.e., on average outcomes were unrelated or “random” with respect to league membership. The preseason and postseason outcomes were similar, with winning averages of .481 and .515, respectively. The AA’s aggregate record in the 44 WCS games was 18–25–1, for a .419 winning average.24 Subtracting these from the five-year totals leaves a 152–147–11 record for the AA in 310 “regular” exhibitions, a .508 average, again not much different than a coin flip. While the WCS outcomes hint at NL superiority, that disappears when including regular exhibitions.

We can conduct a formal hypothesis test using our full sample (n=354) with the null hypothesis being parity, i.e., a mean winning average of .500. We can use the normal (bell-shaped) approximation to the underlying binomial distribution.25 The expected number of wins is 177 (.5*354) and the actual number is 176 (counting ties as a half win and half loss). The resulting test z-score is -.00032, less than .1 percent of the critical z-score of -1.64 at a liberal 10% rejection level. This is strong support for parity.

Looking at the annual results, the AA had a winning averages above .500 in three of the five years: 1885 (.529), 1886 (.551), and 1888 (.552). These were offset mainly by a weak 1887 record of 32–47–2, a winning average of .405, resulting in an overall five-year average of just under .500. These data suggest that the AA might have been, on average, slightly better than the NL in those three years.

In the subsample consisting of the ten preseason and postseason periods, the AA was above .500 versus the NL in three, under .500 in four, and the other three were an even split. Individual AA averages ranged from a low of .392 in the 1887 preseason to a high of .676 in the 1886 postseason. We can also conduct a formal hypothesis test using this subsample, again with the null hypothesis being parity, i.e., a mean winning average of .500. The actual mean of the ten subsample won-loss averages is .497 and their standard deviation is .0876. With the sample size of ten, the resulting t-statistic is -.051.26 To reject the null hypothesis at a liberal 10 percent confidence level would require a t-statistic of at least -2.26. As our actual t-statistic is only about two percent of this value, we are not close to rejecting the null hypothesis of .500. Again, this provides strong support for parity.

In sum, the AA’s winning average for all preseason and postseason exhibition games during 1885–89 was slightly under .500. In three of the five years it was above .500 and in seven of the ten preseason and postseason periods the winning average was .500 or higher. Overall, the aggregate record is consistent with AA-NL parity on the playing field for these five years, unless one gives significant disproportionate weight to the WCS results.

We can also look at the record at a more disaggregated level, i.e., how each club in the AA and NL fared against the opposing league. This gets somewhat “messy” because of the unstable membership of both leagues. The AA and NL each had eight members in every year of the 1885–89 study period. The AA had six “mainstay” clubs that competed in all five seasons: the Athletic, Baltimore, Brooklyn, Cincinnati, Louisville, and St. Louis (Browns) clubs. The remaining two AA slots were occupied at various times by five clubs that were members for three or fewer years: Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Kansas City, and Metropolitan (New York). These “part-timer” AA clubs were generally second division finishers, with a combined winning average of .405.

The NL had only four clubs that were members in all five years: the Bostons, Chicagos, New Yorks and Philadelphias. Detroit and Washington were members for four years. We’ll refer to these six clubs as the NL “mainstays.” The remaining slots were occupied at various times by seven clubs that were members for three or fewer years: Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Providence, and St. Louis (Maroons) clubs. Like the AA part-timers, these were generally second division finishers, with a combined winning average of .395.

Accordingly, the AA had a total of 11 clubs during 1885–89 and the NL had 13. The Pittsburgh club moved from the AA to the NL in 1887; the Clevelands moved from the AA to the NL in 1889; and the Kansas Citys moved from the NL to the AA in 1888 after an intervening year in a minor league.27

Table 2 below shows the records of the 11 AA clubs versus the NL during 1885–89, sorted by years of membership, then by games played. The St. Louis and Athletic clubs played the most games, at 90 and 64 respectively, between them accounting for over 40 percent of interleague games. St. Louis was involved in the WCS from 1885 to 1888 and played several games against their intra-city NL rival Maroons in 1885 and 1886, while the Athletics played numerous games against their intra-city rival NL Philadelphias. Including these two, a total of five AA clubs had at least 30 interleague games during our study period. Only one of the six mainstay members had a winning average under .500 against the NL: the Athletics at .461. The other five-year members had averages ranging from .510 to .595. Combined, these six clubs had a winning average of .530 against the NL. In contrast, the five AA “part-timers” as a group had a winning average of only .325 against the NL, ranging from .250 to .429. All had averages lower than the Athletics’ .461. Thus, the aggregate AA winning average of slightly below .500 noted above can be attributed mainly to the poor performance of the part-time clubs, which also did poorly against the AA mainstay clubs.

Table 3 below shows the records of the 13 NL clubs versus the AA during 1885–89, again sorted by years of membership, then by games played. The Philadelphias and New Yorks played the most games, 72 and 48 respectively. The Philadelphias played numerous games against the Athletics, and the New Yorks played many games against their two local AA rivals: the Brooklyns and Metropolitans. Like the AA, five NL clubs had at least 30 interleague games. Of the six NL mainstay clubs that were members for at least four years, two had winning averages against the AA of over .600 (Boston and New York), both greater than any AA team winning average against the NL. On the downside, two clubs in this group had winning averages under .500: Washington at .480, and Chicago, whose .426 winning average is lower than any AA mainstay member versus the NL. Thus the variation in club winning averages vs. the other league was greater in the NL. Overall, these six mainstays have a .535 winning average vs. the AA, slightly larger than the .530 figure for the mainstay AA group vs. the NL. The seven “part timer” clubs in the bottom group of Table 3 with three or fewer years as members had an aggregate winning average of .431, with Cleveland exceeding .500, at .583.28 Note that the NL’s part-timer group average against the AA is more than 100 points greater than the .325 average of AA’s part-timer group against the NL. This is the major difference between the two leagues.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

We examine the question of playing-field parity between the American Association and National League during 1885 and 1889, the “middle” years of the AA’s ten-year existence. This is when parity is most likely to have existed, given the AA’s history before and after this period. A total of 354 interleague exhibition games were played during these five years, including preseason and postseason games and the post-season World’s Championship Series games in each year.

In sum, the results are consistent with AA parity with the NL. The AA’s aggregate record against the NL was 170–172–12 for a winning average of .497, i.e., essentially breaking even. In three of the five years AA clubs had above .500 averages against the NL. Formal tests of the hypothesis of parity (winning average=.500) for the full sample and the subsample of ten pre/post seasons do not come close to rejecting the hypothesis. The six mainstay clubs of both leagues had above .500 winning averages against the other league that were about the same, the NL’s being slightly higher. The main difference between the two leagues was among their weaker “part-time” member clubs, those with three or fewer years of membership. In both leagues, this group had records significantly below .500 against the other league, with the AA’s part-timers performing below the NL’s part-timers in interleague play. In terms of parity, this was the main difference between the two leagues.

The AA’s on-field performance during 1885–89 held some promise for long term success. But it’s weak leadership and generally haphazard management relative to the NL rendered it unable to cope with the major threat posed by the 1890 Players League. As a result the 1890 and 1891 seasons were largely failures, both on the playing field and financially. Then, in 1892, the weakened AA was absorbed by the NL and its ten-year run came to an end.

WOODY ECKARD, PhD is a retired economics professor living in Evergreen CO with his wife Jacky and their two dogs Petey and Violet. Among his academic publications are 13 papers on sports economics, five of which relate to MLB. More recently he has published in SABR’s Baseball Research Journal, The National Pastime, and Nineteenth Century Notes. He is a Rockies fan and a SABR member for over 20 years.

Notes

1. The Clipper is available from the Digital Newspaper Collections at the University of Illinois Library: https://idnc.library.illinois.edu/?a=d&d=NYC18771006.2.13&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN———-.

2. Based on 1890 U.S. Census data. The AA cities were Allegheny City (Pittsburgh), Baltimore, Cincinnati, Louisville, Philadelphia, and St. Louis. The NL’s 1882 lineup was Boston, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Providence, Troy, and Worcester. Even without its two smallest cities, Troy and Worcester, the NL’s average population was still substantially less at 233,750. The population for the Allegheny City club includes Pittsburgh. At that time they were independent polities separated only by a river, akin to Brooklyn and New York at that time.

3. For example, see Richard Hershberger, “The First Baseball War: The American Association and the National League.” SABR Baseball Research Journal 49, no. 2 (2020), 115–25.

4. Edward Achorn, The Summer of Beer and Whiskey: How Brewers, Barkeeps, Rowdies, Immigrants, and a Wild Pennant Fight Made Baseball America’s Game (New York: Public Affairs, Perseus Books Group, 2013), 29; and David Pietrusza, Major Leagues: The Formation, Sometimes Absorption and Mostly Inevitable Demise of 18 Professional Baseball Organizations, 1871 to Present (lemurpress.com: Lemur Press, 2020), 72.

5. David Nemec, The Beer and Whiskey League: The Illustrated History of the American Association—Baseball’s Renegade Major League (Guilford CT: The Lyons Press, 2004), 26.

6. Nemec, The Beer and Whiskey League, 46; and Achorn, The Summer of Beer and Whiskey, 50–51.

7. William J. Ryczek, Baseball’s Wildest Season: Three Leagues, Thirty-Four Teams and the Chaos of 1884 (Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company, 2023). See also Justin McKinney, Baseball’s Union Association: The Short, Strange Life of a 19th-Century Major League (Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company Inc., Publishers, 2022); and Richard Hershberger, “The Union Association War of 1884”, SABR Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Spring 2024).

8. The National League was “above it all” with the same eight-club lineup as in 1883, and all successfully completed the season.

9. Matt Albertson, “Introduction and Context of the Players League Formation,” in Base Ball’s 19th Century “Winter” Meetings: 1857–1900, Jeremy K. Hodges and Bill Nowlin, eds. (SABR, 2018), 285.

10. John Bauer, “The Establishment Responds: Winter Meetings 1889–90 (NL/AA),” in Base Ball’s 19th Century “Winter” Meetings: 1857–1900, 277.

11. Rob Bauer, Outside the Lines of Gilded Age Baseball: The Origins of the 1890 Players League (robbauerbooks@gmail.com, 2018), 223–24.

12. Nemec, The Beer and Whisky League, 187. Toward the end of the 1890 season, Baltimore re-joined the AA, replacing the failed new Brooklyn entry.

13. Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 149.

14. Nemec, The Beer and Whisky League, 197.

15. John Bauer, “Three Divides into Two: The 1890 Winter Meetings,” in Base Ball’s 19th Century “Winter” Meetings: 1857–1900, 293. See also Clifford Blau, “The 1890 Athletic Club: The Worst Team in MLB History,” Seamheads.com, October 9, 2012, https://seamheads.com/2012/10/09/the-1890-athletics-the-worst-team-in-major-league-baseball-history/, accessed July 1, 2024.

16. John Bauer, “Three Divides into Two,” 293.

17. John Bauer, “Three Divides into Two,” 296.

18. John Bauer, “Three Divides into Two,” 297.

19. Seymour and Seymour, Baseball: The Early Years, 262.

20. Nemec, The Beer and Whisky League, 240.

21. These players, however, might be highly motivated, viewing the games as “tryouts.”

22. Scott Simkus, Outsider Baseball: The Weird World of Hardball on the Fringe, 1876–1950 (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2014), 22.

23. For example, see Nemec, The Beer and Whisky League, 242–44.

24. As the Browns were AA champions in four of the five years, the WCS results alone tell us little more than where the Browns stood against the NL champions, i.e., it’s an unrepresentative sample.

25. The binomial is a discrete probability distribution that applies to a situation with n “trials” (games); two possible outcomes at each trial: “success” (win, with probability p) or “failure” (loss, with probability q); and a constant success probability p. In our case, n=354 and p=q=.500 assuming parity. The expected value is n*p=177, with ties counting as a half win and half loss, and the standard deviation is (n*p*q)½=9.41. The sample size is well above the minimum threshold suggested for applying the normal approximation.

26. The calculation is t=(.497-.500)/(.0876/10½).

27. Upon moving to the NL, the Allegheny City winning average decreased from .584 to .444, and the Cleveland average increased from .379 to .462. For Kansas City, the intervening minor league year makes a comparison inappropriate.

28. Without the “outlier” Cleveland, the NL’s part-timer average versus the AA was .401.

The only known photo of the Nippon Baseball Club, taken in approximately 1918. (THE SYDNEY SUN)

In 1919, Japanese migrants living in Sydney donated a silver cup to the New South Wales (NSW) Baseball Association “[i]n appreciation of the friendship and good feeling accorded the Nippon [Baseball] Club since it joined the Association.”1 The Cup was for the annual winner of the District competition in Sydney, NSW.2 Known as the Nippon Cup, after the team who presented it, it was the goal of District competition over the next two decades. The Nippon Cup has erroneously been identified by Joe Clark in A History of Australian Baseball as a gift from the Japanese consul, but contemporary records including news reports and the annual reports of the NSW Baseball Association show this was not the case.3 By World War II, the origins of NSW Baseball’s most treasured trophy had become of a problem. Following discussion at the Annual General Meeting of the NSW Baseball Association in 1941, the Nippon Cup disappears from the records. It is not mentioned in subsequent baseball reports by state associations, internet searches provide no details on its existence, and enquiries with the last club to win the Nippon Cup have gone unanswered. The Nippon Cup vanishes.

The absence of the Nippon Cup in Australian baseball after 1941 reflects the limited recognition of the role Japanese players and Japanese expatriate community played in Australian baseball in the first two decades of the twentieth century, history that was actively erased during and immediately after World War II. The major but forgotten element of that history is the Nippon Baseball Club, who played in Sydney from 1917 to 1919. Their players gave the NSW Baseball Association and its members the Nippon Cup as a gesture of the positive relations that existed between the Japanese residents and the wider baseball community.

Drawing from archival research, utilizing more than three hundred contemporary news reports from the National Archives of Australia, and the Brian Davis Collection and Davis Sporting Collection in the NSW State Library, the story of a Japanese team welcomed in Australia at the height of the White Australia immigration policy is revealed. Contemporary sources show that the Nippon Baseball Club and its players were a popular addition to local baseball competition. The past two decades have seen growing recognition of the role of Japanese migrants in baseball’s history in the United States and Canada, but their role in Australia has been overlooked. Acknowledging the forgotten role of the Nippon Baseball Club is a step in correcting that omission.

When Australia’s colonies formed a nation of federated states in 1901, one of the first acts of the new Australian parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act 1901. The Immigration Restriction Act was an extension of earlier policies seeking to restrict who could migrate to Australia, and in particular severely limit the immigration of people from Asia to Australia, with the goal of creating a primarily white country (similar to Great Britain). Until this point, Japanese migration to Australia had largely been driven in response to emerging pearl and sugar cane industries.

The first recorded Japanese immigrant to Australia was Sakuragawa Rikinosuke in 1871.4 Rikinosuke was an acrobat who settled in Queensland. The White Australia policy, reflected in the Immigration Restriction Act 1901, significantly limited Japanese immigration after federation.5 Japanese migrants were permitted to enter Australia, but the number was modest. After 1904 Japanese migrants were exempted from the dictation test—a requirement in the Immigration Act that was used to exclude non-Europeans from entering Australia by requiring them to dictate a 50-word passage—when seeking an extension of their visa. The 1911 census records that there were 3281 Japanese-born men and 208 Japanese-born women resident in Australia.6 Spread across the continent, very few lived in New South Wales: only 125 Japanese-born men and 14 Japanese-born women were resident in New South Wales as recorded in the 1911 census.7 By 1921, the number of Japanese-born men in New South Wales more than doubled to 302.8

As the Australian government sought to prevent permanent migration from Asia to Australia, most Japanese people resident in Australian cities before WWII were here temporarily, some as representatives of Japanese businesses. Despite these restrictions, limited numbers of immigrants from Japan had resettled in Australia. Because Australian migration policy severely restricted immigration, the umbrella term “migrant,” defined by the UN as “a person who moves away from his or her place of usual residence, whether within a country or across an international border, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons,” will be used to identify them.9 While Australian attitudes to Japan had been mostly positive at the beginning of the 20th century, and particularly supportive of Japan in its 1904–05 war with Russia, historians have typically identified an increasingly negative attitude by Australians towards Japan from 1907 onwards.10

Baseball’s history in Australia is almost as long as its history in the United States. While stories of prospectors playing baseball in Victoria’s Gold Rush (which started around 1851) are almost certainly apocryphal, there is evidence of a baseball game in Melbourne as early as 1855.11 However, interest in baseball remained modest in Australia over the next several decades. The prospects for baseball in Australia were strong enough, however, to encourage Albert Goodwill Spalding to bring his baseball world tour to Australia in 1888–89, which generated significant local interest. In 1913–14 the New York Giants and Chicago White Sox included Australia in their world tour. Again, this event was met with significant interest and widely covered in local media. Local baseball was a regular feature of Sydney’s sports calendar, too.

The NSW Baseball Association had been formed in 1898, and regular district competitions, as well as a suite of lower grades, were competed each winter (and some in the summer as well).12 Daily newspapers in Sydney included numerous articles about local baseball competition and the names and details of players were shared with sufficient familiarity to indicate that the sport had a relatively popular following. By the 1910s, local Sydney games could draw more than three thousand paying spectators.

THE NIPPON BASEBALL CLUB STEPS UP TO THE PLATE

In 1917, NSW Baseball Association officials had been attempting to arrange a game between a NSW representative team and visiting officers from Japanese naval ships who were there as World War I allies.13 When it became impossible to schedule such a game, Japanese residents in Sydney agreed to play. The game was to raise funds for the “War Chest”—money in aid of Australia’s involvement in World War I. The positive nature of the event was evident in media coverage. Referee noted that “[t]here is no doubt about sport for fostering the Imperial spirit, and this was exemplified [at the game].”14 Conditions for the game were appalling and the ground was largely underwater, however such a large crowd had turned up to watch that the game went on anyway. It was noted that “the pavilion was uncomfortably packed, and large crowds stood in the rain, until the finish.”15 It was reported that attendance would have broken records but for the poor conditions.16 The wardrobe of the Nippon team received considerable attention: “The Nippon team looked particularly smart in their neat grey uniforms.”17 Their jerseys sported “Nippon” in red lettering.

The appearance of the Nippon Baseball Club at this point in the season was advantageous. One of the district teams, Burwood, had to withdraw because they were unable to regularly field a team. Nippon were invited to play Burwood’s remaining schedule, reducing the interruption to the league. In their first regular season game, Nippon defeated Paddington at Waverley Oval, 15 to 13.18 The offensive performance of Nippon was strong, though weaknesses in fielding were evident.19 This should not have been surprising, however, as only four players in the Nippon team had previously played baseball.20 Still, they were noted to “have plenty of energy” and “their enthusiasm counts for much.”21 The game offered “great excitement,” as Nippon batted in six runs in the bottom of the ninth to take the game from Paddington.22,23

There was a week’s enforced break for Nippon as a result of professional obligations: “Business prevents Nippon from playing to-day.”24 This issue would plague Nippon’s involvement and was later reported as the reason Nippon would leave the league.25 Nippon played the remainder of the season, with their games highly attended and often used to raise funds for the war effort.26 After their third game in the league, the NSW Baseball Association chairman M.A. Noble expressly welcomed Nippon’s own delegate K. Watanabe at an Association meeting, and the event was significant enough to be covered in Sydney newspapers.27

Nippon’s final game of the season pitted them against the reigning champions, Petersham No. 2.28 Despite a loss, reports still found positive things to say about Nippon, reflecting the overall positive attitude to the team in their first season. As the Sydney Sportsman reported, Nippon “displayed keenness and improvement which augurs well for future efficiency.”29 As further evidence of their widespread interest and support in Sydney, a large crowd paid to watch the game between Nippon and Petersham No. 2.30

The welcoming attitude of the Sydney baseball community to the Japanese players was also evidenced in the NSW Baseball Association’s annual report following the 1917 season. The report gave special mention to Nippon and stated that:

The entrance of the Nippon team marks an epoch in the game in Australia, this being the first occasion of the appearance of the Japanese in baseball circles in Australia. Under the able captaincy of Mr. M Mukuhara, they made a very creditable showing, and it is sincerely to be hoped that the coming season will see ‘Nippon’ properly enrolled in the Competition and in a position to play continuously.

The inclusion of a team of Japanese residents in Sydney to play regularly was a milestone in Australian baseball, and Australian sports more generally. Japanese teams had begun to play in the US West Coast, but this marked the first time a dedicated team made up of Japanese migrants participated in Australian competition. News reports of Nippon that first season were universally supportive. Even when losing, articles found positive dimensions of their play to highlight. Surviving reports from the season suggest an immense amount of affection from local baseballers and sports journalists towards the Nippon team.

Albert Goodwill Spalding brought his baseball world tour to Australia in 1888–89. (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)

NIPPON CLUB IN THE FINAL YEAR OF WORLD WAR I

The 1918 season started with the NSW Baseball Association expressing deep gratitude to Nippon. That their involvement in the District competition was welcomed would be an understatement. Ahead of the season, the NSW Baseball Association made a special presentation to the Nippon team in appreciation of their contributions.31 A “handsomely framed illuminated address” was presented to team members “couched in panegyric terms, not only in regard to the advent of the Japanese locally as baseballers, but glowingly appreciative of their invaluable service as an ally.”32 The text of the address read:

The New South Wales Baseball Association, on behalf of all interested in the sport, desire to express the appreciation of the part taken by the representatives of the Japanese Empire resident in Sydney, in the baseball games played during the season 1917, also of the chivalrous manner in which the operations generally of the Nippon team were conducted. Japan and Australia have many common interests which are enhanced by association of this description.33

There was much anticipation about Nippon’s performance in the upcoming season. Nippon, however, lost their first two games by large margins.34 When given the opportunity to spend time practicing, however, Nippon improved considerably, and later games saw Nippon provide a tougher challenge for opposing teams.35,36 One game saw Nippon’s numbers bolstered by the addition of Japanese navy sailors visiting Sydney.37 Their performance “made it torrid” for their opponents, and their performance “greatly pleased a big crowd of local supports [sic], who were most impartial [in favor of Nippon].”38,39 Contemporary news reports suggest that Nippon continued to receive a welcome and supportive reception wherever they went. Spectators had a genuine interest in watching local baseball, especially Nippon, and were eager to support the Japanese team in addition to the teams from their own districts.

Nippon’s greatest success in 1918 was their defeat of St. Elmo: “At Waverley Oval Nippon found their batting clothes, and combined with effect.”40 The Sun reported that “the Japanese won their first game, and in doing so displayed knowledge of what is called ‘inside dope,’ which was a surprise to their opponents and the onlookers at Waverley Oval.”41 Nippon beat St. Elmo 11 to 3.42 Nippon’s pitcher, G. Tsuchiya, and their catcher M. Mukuhara, “were very good on this occasion, while Watanabe at first base played his best to date.”43 Nippon players were frequently identified in local baseball coverage. This included discussion of players such as Mukuhara— whom some outlets nicknamed Mike O’Hara—in such familiar terms that it can be assumed their audience were as aware of Nippon players as they were those from other teams. However, first names were never used, and their first initials were seldom used. Not even a pictorial spread of the team in 1918 used their first names, identifying them only by first initial and last name. Confirmation of their first names through immigration records has thus far been unsuccessful.

During the 1918 season, the coverage by Sydney Sportsman of the Nippon v. University game, which Nippon lost 9–3, is perhaps the most striking. The Sportsman appears to have been the most likely news outlet to use offensive language, and to generally express more qualified praise than the general support of other newspapers. Their report of the game was extensive, relative to coverage of other baseball games in Sydney newspapers. The article began with “Banzai! Banzai! Banzai! In common vernacular, Hip! Hip! To the nippy Nippon’s excellent display against Almer Mater at Uni. It was fine.”44 The article provided a slang-heavy description of the game, describing Sugita as “some short-stop” with “fine throw[s]” and that Watanabe performed very well despite his broken glasses, which had been damaged following a collision with a runner at first. Ikeda at third base was “no slouch,” and special mention was made of the center fielder Takeshita who made an amazing catch to deny Tim Yates a home run for University.45 Nippon also demonstrated “fleetness of foot on the bases” and stealing eleven bases.46 The article closed with the promise that “Keep on doing it you Banzai crowd, and there are fruits of victory ahead.”47

Following the University game, Nippon would next play Petersham No. 2, losing 14 to 7 in a game in which Mukuhara hit one of the longest home runs seen at Petersham Oval.48 Subsequent weeks, however, were not positive for Nippon. They forfeited their first game the following week against Petersham No. 1, then lost 19–2 against St. Peters the week after.49,50 Nippon would next lose to St. George 23 to 7.51 The loss against St. George, and the earlier forfeit and loss to Petersham, were explained later that week in an article in Referee: the “Japanese, owing to the migration of their men, are finding it difficult to keep moving with a complete outfit.”52 Personnel challenges because of migration would become an ongoing problem for the Nippon Club. This would later be compounded by the flu pandemic of 1919 and the workloads of Japanese migrants for their Japanese employers.

Nippon continued to face challenges fielding a nine. They forfeited the next two weeks, first against Bondi, then against St. Elmo53,54 Nippon played University in their last game of the season, losing 9 to 1.55 Nippon were depleted, and the team was supplemented by third grade (lowest level) players from the Bondi club. Key Nippon personnel were absent, such as Sugita at shortstop. Arrow would recount the problem first reported by Referee that migration had impacted Nippon’s ability to play. This time, however, it would end Nippon’s season: “The Japanese owing to the migration of a few of their best players are reluctantly compelled to drop out of the remaining fixtures.”56 Nippon ended the season with a .071 record, winning only one of their 14 games. Of those games, three losses were due to forfeit and several of the others occurred when Nippon had difficulty fielding a full team. Several of the games had been close encounters, and Nippon’s season could easily have matched St. Elmo or St. Peters, who recorded 2 and 5 wins in the season respectively.57

A baseball carnival was held after the end of the season, in part to raise funds for the war effort.58 A representative side with players drawn from the district teams played Petersham No. 2 as part of the festivities. Significantly, Mukuhara was selected to play right field for the representative team.59 The inclusion of a Nippon player in a district representative side indicates that the team were well integrated into local competition, and their players considered sufficiently talented and part of the community that they would be selected with the best from other teams.

At the conclusion of the 1918 season The Sun published a lengthy article on the Nippon Baseball Club, with a large photo of the complete team. The article detailed the growth of baseball in Japan and plainly stated that the quality of players in Japan “is better than Australia has so far produced.”60 Details of each player were shared, and a narrative of how the team was formed. The Sun’s article is an example of how local sports reports demonstrated considerable knowledge of Nippon’s players. In particular, it made clear that only Tsuchiya (pitcher), Mukuhara (catcher), Watanabe (first base), and Sugita (short stop) had played baseball in Japan, meaning less than half of Nippon’s players had played baseball before coming to Australia. Like most coverage, this final article from 1918 made sure to stress the positives of the Nippon team. “Their team work on the bases is alert, speedy and commendable” and they “evince keen enthusiasm.”61

Nippon’s inclusion in the 1919 season was met with great anticipation. The Sydney Sportsman believed that Nippon “will be far from easy money” with new “players who have graduated through the high schools of Japan, which reach the high water mark in the sport.”62 Mukuhara, who was instrumental in forming the team in 1917, had been sought by the paper for comment, though had not been directly quoted. Nippon had been practicing regularly at North Sydney Oval No. 2, but in an indication of things to come, Mukuhara was forced to return to Japan “to attend to some private business” before the season commenced.63,64 No date is given for his return, but his next mention in the media is in the May 12, 1919, edition of the Sydney Morning Herald.65 The absence of Mukuhara, even in preparations for the season, would be a considerable loss.66

The 1919 season would be different to the 1917 and 1918 seasons due to the merger between the District competition and the National League, which had been run by different organizing bodies. Nippon had played in the wintertime District competition overseen by the NSW Baseball Association. The National League had played a summer competition as opposed to the District competition that took place in the winter. As such, additional teams would play in the District competition in 1919, while some clubs were relegated to play in lower leagues. St. Peters and St. Elmo would not play in the same competition this season as they had in the past, while four new teams were added. This appears to have had the immediate effect of increasing the competitiveness of the league, particularly as two of the new clubs would finish first and second at the end of the season. In retrospect, this no doubt decreased Nippon’s chances for success, particularly given the challenges they were about to face.

The absence of Mukuhara in the preparations for the 1919 season had indeed been a harbinger of the difficulties the team would face. Nippon turned up to play Waverley at Rushcutter’s Bay Oval only for the teams to be denied use of the field.67 A lower grade game was also scheduled at the same venue and all four teams and their supporters arrived at the oval only to be told by authorities that permission to play was refused.68 The Daily Telegraph reported that this was due to a misunderstanding.69 The Sydney Sportsman, never a publication inclined to moderation, was more explicit: “some spoil sport in authority or his myrmidons forbade the use of Rushcutter Bay Oval ‘because baseball is a dangerous game and would cut up the ground.’”70 They continued:

Gadzooks! If baseball is dangerous so is a new born babe. And football [Rugby League] is played there. Ain’t it sickening? Wonder whether the Johnny who issued the edict ever went to a Sunday School picnic and played kiss in the ring with the girls. That’s more dangerous, especially these “flu days.”71

The observation of the presence of influenza is important. Aside from its nationally and internationally devastating impact, it would also severely curtail Nippon’s participation and likely contributed to 1919 being the last baseball season in Australia with significant migrant involvement before World War II.

Nippon would lose their first game of the season to Bondi, 7 to 0.72 The press made much of Nippon being “Chicagoed”: kept scoreless. The Sun reported that “Tipped as the dark horses that were going to upset calculations, they are the weakest line-up in a bunch of mostly evenly-matched outfits.”73 Describing the other teams as evenly matched was premature, as teams such as Newtown would prove equally out-matched. The following day’s Daily Telegraph would point out that there had been a record number of scoreless games in the season already and was “a clear indication of the inequality of the teams engaged.”74 It was their view that Newtown, University, Nippon, and Petersham No. 1 were all at a disadvantage in the league.

Nippon would miss their next game against Leichardt due to wet weather, before losing 16 to 0 the next week to St. George.75,76 This was followed by a game against Petersham No. 1, where “Nippon broke their run of cyphers by scoring two runs,” but lost 11 to 2.77 Nippon scoring for the first time in the season was significant enough news that it was reported in multiple outlets.78 But the failure of NSW teams to score continued to be a cause of surprise for the sporting press: “‘Chicagoes’ continue to be the order of the day—a feature quite unusual in the history of the game in New South Wales.”79 This does put Nippon’s performance in context. While their inability to score many runs was noted, it was not unique in the league that season. Nippon’s attitude, in contrast, was considered a good influence on the league, particularly its respectability. The Arrow, while noting the improvement of Nippon’s play, remarked “Their natty uniforms of white are an object lesson. Most of the clubs would do well to take a leaf out of Nippon’s book. Some of the teams dress worse than badly, and this leaves a very bad impression on the spectators.”80

During the 1919 season Nippon was severely depleted by influenza as the global pandemic spread across Australia. The Daily Telegraph reported that “Nippon had several players ill, and were compelled to forfeit to Newtown; the latter thus registers its first win of the season.”81 The Sydney Sportsman would record that “Nippon nipped by flu, forfeited to Newtown.”82 Influenza continued to hamper Nippon’s participation, forcing them to forfeit their next game against Petersham No. 2, and it was also taking a significant toll on other teams.83,84 The NSW Baseball Association was forced to pass a resolution as a result:

That it be an expression of opinion that during the influenza pandemic, club captains should not take advantage of the rules in regard to shortage of players, i.e., if teams are short handed they are to be permitted to fill up their teams with players from lower grades, up to three men.85

This rule almost certainly presented a greater problem for Nippon than other teams. Nippon had no lower grades to draw from. Consequently, any absence, even just of a single player, might result in a forfeited game due to an inability to field a nine. It also meant that illness likely had a more profound impact on practice and team cohesion than for other clubs. This would have compounded the difficulty noted in other sources that Nippon had in finding time to practice within their professional schedules. Owing to Australia’s severe restrictions on immigration from Asia during the White Australia Policy, there was a relatively modest Japanese community to draw players from. As the 1919 season marched on, Nippon was forced to forfeit repeatedly and play without training. This generated some disappointment in the press and criticism of their on-field performance.86 The singling out of Nippon, however, seems unfair. There were numerous poor results in the 1919 season, with inconsistent standards and lackluster performances observed on multiple occasions. In one article critical of Nippon’s performance, The Sun describes the previous week’s games as “inferior,” when in fact Nippon did not play.87

By mid-July 1919, Nippon’s health appeared to be improving. The Daily Telegraph reported that:

Nippon, which has had to forfeit for the past three Saturdays, expects to have no difficulty in getting a team together for next Saturday. The team will be helped by the return from Japan of Mr. G Tsuchiya, who will be remembered as its pitcher, and one of the best players for the past two seasons. The club, as a token of the good feeling existing, is presenting the association with a handsome trophy for annual competition in the district division.88

Nippon’s 6–3 loss to Leichardt would prove that the team was capable of strong performances, and that circumstances had impacted their season rather than a lack of ability. Coverage of their game against Leichardt—the competition leaders—was a return to the favorable and positive coverage evident almost every week Nippon was in the league. The Sunday Times noted that Leichardt “were hard pushed, Nippon surprising everyone by their improved form.”89 “Surprise” was the most common description of the result that week. The Sun said that “Nippon put up their best display of the season… [and] surprised the home nine. Everything catchable was taken by the Japs [sic], the improvement most notable.”90 The Sydney Morning Herald called the Nippon performance “a mild sensation” and declared “that team work of the Japanese defensively was vastly better than anything hitherto revealed by them, and they let nothing within reach escape. At the bat, too, they were more effective than usual.”91

Nippon finished the season with the worst record in the league (0–18). Newtown, however, had a similarly poor record (2–16) and much greater resources to draw from. Due to the merger of the National League and the NSW Baseball Association’s District Competition, talent was now concentrated at the top of the restructured league, increasing the difficulty for clubs with less depth. The lack of depth in the Nippon Club’s roster had a significant impact on their performance. When players like Mukuhara had to return to Japan, their absence was clearly evident. Whereas other clubs had rosters to supplement their nine when illness, travel, and work schedules depleted the pool of available players, Nippon were not so fortunate, negatively impacting their ability to practice and perform well on the field.

In the final weeks of the 1919 season, members of the Nippon Club gave to NSW Baseball Association the Nippon Cup. Its presentation received wide coverage in the Sydney press. The sentiment in news reports was affectionate and appreciative. In their annual general report for the 1919–20 financial year, the NSW Baseball Association reported that:

Your Association desired to extend its very sincere thanks to the Nippon Baseball Club for the handsome silver club [sic] present for competition in the District Division. The relations existing between our Japanese friends and the Association have always been of the most cordial nature, and this graceful act on their part serves to bind the ties more closely. The value of a thorough understanding between Australia and Japan cannot be overestimated in view of the future administration of affairs in the Pacific Ocean, and your Association feels it is on the right track in thus helping to build up a firm friendship with the Sydney representatives of the “little brown people [sic]” who are surely destined to become a great nation.92

It was disappointing that the Association chose to include such a racially offensive description when recognizing the gift of the Nippon Cup. That the gratitude was genuine, however, seems indisputable given the overall discussion of the gift in contemporary reports.

NIPPON CLUB AND CUP IN THE 1920S AND BEYOND

While it was hoped that Nippon would return to play in 1920, they had to leave the competition.93 Surviving contemporary reports do not provide an explanation, though the challenges faced in 1919 were likely to be influential. It may be that insufficient players were available for the 1920 season. Two years after their last appearance, Nippon Club were still remembered fondly. The Daily Telegraph recalled in 1921 that:

For several years the Nippon nine took part in the New South Wales Association’s competitions. Unfortunately, owing to unavoidable changes they could never work up a combination, an essential factor to success in baseball, and they were easily beaten. There were several capable exponents, especially the battery, and they were intensely enthusiastic.94

The article also called on local baseball officials to do more to include Japanese players, particularly in having a Japanese university team tour.

Say! ye local administrators. What’s the matter with trying to get a Japanese University team to visit Australia. They would find foemen worthy of their steel in club and interstate teams, and the invasion would keep an impetus to the game. It would probably be a paying proposition, too. Perhaps Billy Hughes [Australia’s then-prime minister] might be persuaded to initiate overtures. Not a bad diplomatic move.—Eh, what!95

In 1923, the press was hopeful that the Nippon club would return. The Sun declared that:

Summer baseball promises, to be interesting this year. First of all, the Japs [sic] are thinking of coming back. There are enough Japanese players, living in Sydney now to get together a good, sound team. The only difficulty is— time. Can they find enough time for practice and play? A couple of years ago they found they couldn’t—that’s why they had to give it up. It was simply business or baseball—and they had to choose business. It couldn’t be helped, of course, but they regret it now. They’re keen on the game and they want to be back in it. So they’re going to do their best to put Nippon into the competition this summer.96

The participation of Nippon in the summer league (rather than the higher profile winter league) was also reported in the Sydney Mail.97 Sadly, no further mention of the Nippon Club appears that season. It can only be surmised that Nippon’s participation did not happen. This is further affirmed by coverage the next year when a Japanese naval training vessel visited Australia. During that trip representatives from the team played several games, including against state representative sides. The Sun observed that “[a] Japanese nine will not be a novelty to baseball fans in Sydney. The Nippon team, composed of residents here, played for several seasons during the winter, and presented the association with a fine silver cup.”98 That there was no mention of them playing in the current summer season (1923–24) indicates that efforts to include Nippon again were unsuccessful.

1924 is the second to last year the Nippon team is mentioned in news reports on baseball in Australia. The Nippon Cup was noted annually in the news when it was awarded to the champions of the District Competition. NSW Baseball Association’s annual reports also make regular mention of the Nippon Cup, but do not mention the team. It is not until 1941 that the team is mentioned again for the final time. This is in relation to the Nippon Cup they gave to the NSW Baseball Association. The Cup’s name and origins had proved controversial for NSW Baseball Association once Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and entered World War II. The fate of the Nippon Cup was national news, appearing in newspapers outside of Sydney and New South Wales. Melbourne’s Argus newspaper told its readers that:

Japan’s entry into the war has set a problem for the State baseball association. One of its most treasured trophies, the Nippon Cup, was presented by Japanese residents before the last war. The cup was presented for competition in the first grade, now the major league, when the Nippon team played regularly here. Since then it has been the most prized trophy in the district competitions. Mr. H. C. Steele, honorary secretary of the association, said that Marrickville club, which won the premiership last year, will hold the trophy until next August. What will become of it then is conjecture. As the profits of the organization are devoted to war funds, one suggestion is that it be melted down, sold, and the money given to the national war effort.99

Later headlines declared “Nippon Cup for Melting Pot.”100 At the NSW Baseball Association Committee meeting in February 1941 the Nippon Cup’s fate was debated. Reports from that meeting demonstrated the depth of ill-will NSW baseball’s community now felt towards Japan.

Twenty-three [sic] years ago the Japanese presented the New South Wales Baseball Association with the Nippon Cup. Its intrinsic value is £3/7/9 [$335.71AUD in 2024, or $215.71USD]. It has not yet gone into the melting pot. At the annual meeting this week a committeeman suggested that the cup should be preserved, and the following inscription engraved:—”This trophy was presented by the Japs [sic] when they had a little appreciation of sportsmanship left.”101

At the last mention of the Nippon Cup in news report—February 28, 1941—no decision had still been made regarding what was to be done with it. NSW Baseball Association’s annual reports make no further mention of the Nippon Cup. The Nippon Cup vanishes from the records. With it, any mention of the Nippon Club also disappears. The Cup or the Club are not mentioned again after 1941.

THE NIPPON CLUB AND LOCAL ATTITUDES

News coverage of Nippon Club’s games and their players was widespread, and that coverage was almost universally supportive. The offensive slur “Japs” does appear in the coverage, as previously quoted in this article. In 303 contemporary news reports reviewed for this project the term appears 16 times in 13 articles. On one of those occasions, it is a quotation from a source during World War II.102 It seems unlikely that the term was intended to be offensive, though that has little bearing on how it might have been received. Significantly, 10 out of the 16 uses of the term appear in seven articles by the Sydney Sportsman, which was more likely than other publications to be critical of the Nippon Club and to result to jingoism and puns based on the name Nippon. In context, none of the uses of the word appear, on face value, to have been intended to insult members of the Nippon team or the Japanese community in Sydney. Despite the use of that offensive slur, reports regularly thank the Japanese for their participation in the game. When Nippon won, it appears there was near universal celebration. When Nippon lost, the press regularly found something positive to note in their performance.

More problematic, however, is the description of Nippon players by reference to their skin color and height. Whether the intention of the journalists was to be offensive is also now lost. But again, that has little bearing on how it might have been received, and the discussion is clearly offensive to modern audiences. There are only five instances in the more than 300 articles where Nippon players, or the team, are described as “little brown men.”103 On one other occasion the word “brown” is used in reference to the team.104 The surrounding discussion, however, almost always includes praise. The use of these offensive descriptors, though rare in the sporting press at the time, indicates the prevailing prejudice that informed the popular White Australia policy.

What is evident in the contemporary coverage of the Nippon Club is that they were well liked. Local sports journalists appreciated the involvement of the Nippon team in local competition. The NSW Baseball Association was also very grateful to Nippon and made that position clear on several occasions. The challenges faced by Nippon in regularly fielding a team only slightly diminished the esteem with which the team and its players were held. Their participation in the NSW Baseball Association, one of the premier baseball competitions in Australia of its time, is an important milestone in baseball’s development in Australia. This occurs during the same period that Japanese teams, or teams of Japanese migrants and players of Japanese heritage, were participating in baseball leagues on the West Coast of the United States. It has been overlooked that similar efforts and contributions (though more modest) were made by Japanese migrant communities to baseball in Australia.

That a team of Japanese baseball players was so popular in Sydney during the White Australia policy suggests two things. As contemporary news reports pointed out, sport could play a significant role in overcoming prejudice and providing opportunities for integration and interaction between communities. The status of Japan and Australia as allies in World War I also likely contributed to goodwill between Australians and Japanese migrants resident in Sydney. The influence of global events was perhaps most significant. When Japan and Australia became adversaries in World War II, Australians quickly extended those hostilities to the memories of the Nippon Baseball Club and the Nippon Cup they gave as a gift of friendship.

That the Nippon Cup or the team that gave it is never mentioned again demonstrates the efforts baseball authorities made to diminish the role of Japanese in early Australian baseball. By the 1950s, Japanese baseball and ballplayers were still sufficiently controversial that a 1954 tour by the Tokyo Giants was protested by the Returned Servicemen’s League and subsequently cut short.105 That tour had been deliberately arranged to foster goodwill between Australia and Japan, who had only resumed bilateral relations in 1952. It would not be until the 1960s when baseball relationships between Australia and Japan would improve. Tours by Japanese teams to Australia would happen frequently in the second half of the twentieth century. The Nippon Baseball Club, however, would not be mentioned in coverage of those tours. Any memory of the team and their participation in Australian baseball had been almost completely erased, and their thoughtfully gifted Nippon Cup appears entirely lost.

RAY NICKSON is Deputy Head of School (Research and Research Training) at the Newcastle School of Law and Justice where he teaches Criminology and Sport and the Law.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the State Library of New South Wales special collections and the materials included in their sporting collections. Without these resources this research would not be possible.

Notes

1. ‘Baseball Gossip,’ Referee (Sydney), April 30, 1919, 12.

2. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, April 30, 1919, 3.

3. Joe Clarke, A History of Australian Baseball: Time and Game (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003). While Clark’s book provides an authoritative oral history of baseball in Australia for the last half of the 20th century, it draws from incomplete sources to inform its discussion of earlier Australian baseball history.

4. ‘Japan-born Community Information Summary’, Department of Home Affairs, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/mca/files/2016-cis-japan.PDF (accessed October 10, 2024).

5. ‘Japan’, National Archives of Australia, https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/immigration-and-citizenship/migrant-stories/japan (Accessed October 10, 2024).

6. ‘Japan-born Community Information Summary’, Department of Home Affairs, https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/mca/files/2016-cis-japan.PDF (accessed October 10, 2024).

7. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Census of the Commonwealth of Australia 1911—Volume II Part II Birthplaces’, https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/2112.0 (accessed October 10, 2024).

8. Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Census of the Commonwealth of Australia 1921—Volume I Part II Birthplaces’, https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/2111.0 (accessed October 10, 2024).

9. ‘Key Migration Terms,’ International Organization for Migration, https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms (accessed September 8, 2025).

10. Ben McInnes, “Assessing Australian Attitudes to Japan in the Early Twentieth Century—A New Approach,” New Voices 1 (2006): 13–22.

11. Ray Nickson, “An Epoch in Australian Baseball: Stanford University’s Tour of 1928.” SABR Baseball Research Journal 47, Spring (2018): 23–28.

12. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 27, 1898, 12.

13. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, June 27, 1917, 3.

14. ‘Baseball,’ Referee June 27, 1917, 3.

15. ‘Baseball,’ Referee , June 27, 1917, 3.

16. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow (Sydney), June 30, 1917, 8.

17. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow , June 30, 1917, 8.

18. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times (Sydney), 1 July 1917, 5; ‘Baseball,’ Sun (Sydney), July 1, 1917, 7; ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph (Sydney), July 1, 1917, 8.

19. ‘Baseball,’ Referee , July 4, 1917, 11.

20. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, September 1, 1918, 9.

21. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, July 4, 1917, 11.

22. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, July 7, 1917, 7.

23. Nippon scored six in the bottom of the ninth against Paddington when they only needed five runs to win, and while the reason isn’t recorded, it wasn’t uncommon at the time for games to be played outside the rules. Australian baseball before WWII did not always follow the traditional rules set in the United States, due to ignorance or their inability to get an up-to-date copy of the rules from the US.

24. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, July 7, 1917, 7.

25. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, July 3, 1923, 5.

26. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, July 18, 1917, 11; ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, July 21, 1917, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, August 5, 1917, 5; ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, August 6, 1917, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Referee, August 8, 1917, 13; ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, August 11, 1917, 7; ‘Baseball,’ Referee, August 29, 1917, 13.

27. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, July 25, 1917; ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, July 27, 1917, 8.

28. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, September 2, 1917, 5.

29. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, September 5, 1917, 2.

30. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, September 5, 1917, 13.

31. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, March 22, 1918, 8.

32. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, April 6, 1918, 5.

33. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, September 1, 1918, 9.

34. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, May 5, 1918, 4; ‘Baseball,’ Referee, May 8, 1918, 9; ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, May 10, 1918, 5; ‘Baseball,’ Sun, May 12, 1918, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, May 12, 1918, 4; ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, May 17, 1918, 8.

35. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, May 24, 1918, 8.

36. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, May 24, 1918, 8.

37. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, May 24, 1918, 8.

38. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, May 26, 1918, 4.

39. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, May 31, 1918, 8.

40. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, June 9, 1918, 4.

41. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, June 9, 1918, 7.

42. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, June 10, 1918, 3.

43. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, June 12, 1918, 12.

44. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, June 22, 1918, 7.

45. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, June 22, 1918, 7.

46. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, June 22, 1918, 7.

47. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, June 22, 1918, 7.

48. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, June 23, 1918, 16.

49. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, July 1, 1918, 8.

50. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, July 7, 1918, 4; ‘Baseball,’ Sun, July 7, 1918, 9.

51. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, July 15, 1918, 8.

52. ‘Baseball,’ Referee, July 17, 1918, 12.

53. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, July 20, 1918, 2; ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, July 22, 1918, 7.

54. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, July 28, 1918, 4; ‘Baseball,’ Sun, July 28, 1918, 9.

55. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, August 4, 1918, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, August 5, 1918, 9; ‘Baseball,’ Referee, August 7, 1918, 12.

56. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, August 9, 1918, 8.

57. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, August 10, 1918, 2.

58. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, August 24, 1918, 5.

59. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, August 24, 1918, 5.

60. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, September 1, 1918, 9.

61. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, September 1, 1918, 9.

62. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, March 5, 1919, 5.

63. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, March 5, 1919, 5; ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, March 14, 1919, 4.

64. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, March 14, 1919, 4.

65. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 12, 1919, 8.

66. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, March 14, 1919, 4.

67. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, May 4, 1919, 7.

68. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 5, 1919, 8.

69. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, May 5, 1919, 7.

70. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, May 7, 1919, 5.

71. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, May 7, 1919, 5.

72. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, May 11, 1919, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, May 12, 1919, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 12, 1919, 8.

73. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, May 13, 1919, 4.

74. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, 14 May 1919, 10.

75. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, May 20, 1919, 2.

76. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, May 26, 1919, 11.

77. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, June 2, 1919, 6.

78. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, June 1, 1919, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, June 2, 1919, 9.

79. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, June 2, 1919, 9.

80. ‘Baseball,’ Arrow, June 13, 1919, 3.

81. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, June 23, 1919, 7.

82. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, June 25, 1919, 4.

83. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, June 30, 1919, 9.

84. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, June 30, 1919, 5.

85. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, June 28, 1919, 15.

86. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, July 8, 1919, 4.

87. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, July 8, 1919, 4.

88. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, July 16, 1919, 11.

89. ‘Baseball,’ Sunday Times, July 20, 1919, 10.

90. ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, July 21, 1919, 5.

91. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Morning Herald, July 21, 1919, 5.

92. NSW Baseball Association, Annual General Report 1919–1920, 7. Davis Sporting Collection, NSW State Library.

93. ‘Baseball, Sydney Sportsman, April 14, 1920, 2.

94. ‘Sport v Diplomacy,’ Daily Telegraph, December 7, 1921, 12.

95. ‘Sport v Diplomacy,’ Daily Telegraph, December 7, 1921, 12.

96. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, July 3, 1923, 5.

97. ‘The Progress of Baseball in NSW,’ Sydney Mail, August 1, 1923, 15.

98. ‘Baseball,’ Sun, January 22, 1924, 5.

99. ‘Nippon Cup for Baseballers,’ Argus (Melbourne), February 14, 1941, 10.

100. ‘Nippon Cup for Melting Pot,’ Courier Mail (Brisbane), February 16, 1941, 4.

101. ‘P.S. to Nippon Baseball Cup,’ Daily Telegraph, February 19, 1941, 8.

102. ‘P.S. to Nippon Baseball Cup,’ Daily Telegraph, February 19, 1941, 8.

103. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, May 11, 1918, 8; ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, June 15, 1918, 7; ‘Baseball,’ Sun, September 1, 1918, 9; ‘Baseball,’ St. George Call, August 2, 1919, 2; ‘Baseball,’ Daily Telegraph, December 7, 1921, 12.

104. ‘Baseball,’ Sydney Sportsman, July 23, 1919, 2.

105. Ai Kobayashi, ‘Japan-Australia Friendship Through Bat and Ball: The Yomiuri Giants’ Baseball Tour of Australia in 1954,’ in Japan in Australia: Culture, Context and Connection, David Chapman and Carol Hayes, eds. (Routledge, 2019), 63–80.

The full 1915 West Point baseball team, including all five generals. (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)

The United States Military Academy was established at West Point, New York, in 1802, and it has fielded a baseball team every year since 1890. The 1915 team, with an 18–3 record, was arguably the greatest in the school’s history. This team is also remarkable because five of the nine starters went on to serve as Army generals during World War II.

The most prominent of these was Omar Bradley, a left fielder with a rifle arm, who commanded US ground forces invading Germany and rose to the rank of five-star general. Right fielder Leland Hobbs and third baseman Charles Gerhardt became two-star generals and led divisions that landed at Omaha Beach in Normandy, France. As a two-star general, shortstop Vernon Prichard commanded an armored division in Italy. And Robert Neyland, the team’s ace pitcher, served as a one-star general overseeing logistics in Asia. These men knew well their West Point classmate, Dwight D. “Ike” Eisenhower, who would go on to serve as 33rd president of the United States.1

In 1915, they were college students ranging in age from 19 to 24. They came from towns like Moberly, Missouri; Lebanon, Tennessee; and Greenville, Texas. At the US Military Academy, they studied subjects commonly taught at colleges, such as English and mathematics. And they were immersed in specialized coursework designed to prepare them for a career as an Army officer. The topics included military tactics; ordnance and gunnery; military signaling and telegraphy; and hippology, the study of horses.

An extensive athletics program was offered. Using the 1916 yearbook as a guide, football appears to have been the most popular sport; 17 pages are devoted to it. Baseball is next with 12 pages, including five covering the Army-Navy game of May 29, 1915. Basketball follows with five pages in total. Other sports are described in lesser detail: ice hockey, fencing, boxing, wrestling, track and field, tennis, golf, and polo.

In the spring of 1915, Samuel Strang Nicklin was 38 years old and in his seventh season as the Army baseball coach. The combined record of his 1909–14 teams was 76–33 (.697), including a perfect 6–0 mark against archrival Navy. For 10 seasons, he was a utility player in the major leagues, and he learned the fine points of the game from his managers, notably Ned Hanlon of the Brooklyn Superbas and John McGraw of the New York Giants.

Nicklin was known as Sammy Strang during his playing days, and at West Point he was Coach Strang. Off the field, he was a witty, happy-go-lucky guy, wrote Neyland in his memoirs, but on the field, Strang was all business. Neyland called him “an authentic genius with a brilliant mind.”2

In early March, more than 75 cadets tried out for the 1915 team, but only 18 would be chosen to play during the season.3 In addition to the aforementioned future generals, Strang selected these men as starters: Louis Merillat, center field and captain; Hugh Mitchell, first base; Bill Coffin, second base; and Elmer Oliphant, catcher. This was Merillat’s senior year and fourth season on Strang’s team. Like the future generals, Merillat and Mitchell would serve during World War II; as colonels, they were in charge of Army training bases in California and Florida.4

(L to R): Coach Sammy Strang, Elmer Oliphant, Earle Sarcka, Charles Gerhardt, Bill Coffin, Louis Merillat, Leland Hobbs. (1916 HOWITZER YEARBOOK)

THE 1915 SEASON

Throughout the 1915 season, Strang’s team enjoyed home-field advantage. Each game was played on the Plain at West Point, a large general-purpose field that was used for sporting events, military drills, and parades.

The batting order was mostly consistent. There was great speed at the top: Gerhardt leading off, followed by Merillat. The power hitters occupied the middle: Mitchell, Oliphant, Hobbs, and Bradley. And at the bottom were Prichard, Coffin, and the pitcher.

In the season opener on March 31, Prichard contributed two singles and two doubles, and the team played errorless ball in a 15–0 thrashing of New York University.5 The game of April 3 with Dickinson College was canceled by snowfall, but on April 7, Army recorded an 8–1 triumph over the Stevens Institute of Technology of Hoboken, New Jersey. Merillat’s seventh-inning home run was a highlight.6

On April 10, Army defeated Rutgers, 6–0. Neyland, a 6-foot-tall, 175-pound right-hander, pitched the first six innings and allowed no hits, and was credited with his 14th consecutive victory.7 His winning streak had begun in 1913 and included a nine-inning no-hitter against Colgate in 1914.8

Army came from behind to edge Lafayette College, 6–5, on April 14, and in a rematch the next day, prevailed in a high-scoring affair, 10–7.9 The team had an unblemished 6–0 record after routing Harvard, 9–2, on April 17. Facing Neyland for nine innings, the Harvard batters managed only three hits.10

On April 21, Oliphant’s ninth-inning home run lifted Army to a 9–8 victory over Seton Hall. It was his second home run of the game.11 Three days later, Neyland hurled a three-hit shutout in a 2–0 triumph over Lehigh. In that one, Hobbs led the offense with a single, double, and triple.12

Army stole nine bases on April 28 in defeating Swarthmore College 11–7.13 Three days later, “Home Run” Hobbs slugged a grand slam to deep center field in an 11–4 pasting of Georgetown.14 And on May 5, Gerhardt contributed a single and two doubles in a 9–4 victory over Penn State.15

On May 8, the team’s record improved to 12–0, and Neyland notched his 20th consecutive victory, in a 9–5 triumph over Washington and Lee University.16 Four days later, southpaw Earle Sarcka, an Army plebe (freshman) and native of Finland, earned the win in a 5–2 victory over Holy Cross. He had trouble finding the strike zone—eight walks and one wild pitch—but allowed only four hits and struck out nine in nine innings. Bradley clouted a home run.17

Neyland clearly didn’t have his good stuff—he surrendered 20 hits—and his teammates committed nine errors in the field, including four by Prichard at shortstop. Catcher Oliphant had a rough day: he was charged with two errors and three passed balls. Coffin was the lone bright spot for Army, swatting two home runs and committing no errors in six chances at second base.

Bill Walsh, Fordham’s ace, allowed only five hits. It was Walsh who had inflicted Neyland’s last defeat; 1913 he outdueled the Army ace in a 2–0 Fordham victory.20 Walsh turned down offers from major-league teams, choosing instead to pursue a degree in medicine. In 1922 he became the club physician for the New York Giants.21

On May 19, Sarcka threw an impressive shutout in a 4–0 victory over St. John’s College of Brooklyn.22 But Army lost its second game of the season three days later, a close 7–6 defeat to Springfield College of Massachusetts.23 Strang was absent from this game because he was scouting the Navy team at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland.24 Beating Navy was the highest priority.

On May 26, Sarcka again delivered a shutout in an 8–0 romp over Villanova College, and Gerhardt stole four bases.25 With a sterling 15–2 record, Army was ready for the showdown with Navy.

(L) Omar Bradley; (C) Vernon Prichard; (R) Robert Neyland (1916 HOWITZER YEARBOOK)

THE ARMY-NAVY GAME

The Army-Navy baseball series, the grudge match of every season, began in 1901. Of the 13 games that had taken place, Army had won 10. The 14th meeting took place on Saturday, May 29, 1915, at West Point.

Strang, of course, tabbed Neyland to pitch. Neyland had already beaten Navy twice, in 1913 and 1914. The Navy coach, Lieutenant Robert A. “Fuzzy” Theobald, chose pitcher Harry “Gyp” Blodgett, a big right-hander. The determined Navy squad was on a 10-game winning streak and possessed a 16–6 season record. And, as stated in the Navy yearbook, “The motive of our 1915 season was to beat the Army.”26

The stands were filled by 2:00pm for the 3:00pm game. The size of the crowd was estimated to be 10,000, with a preponderance of rooters for the home team, as recounted in the Army yearbook: “Cheer upon cheer thunders sonorously forth from the solid mass of gray which is the corps, echoing and reechoing across the plain and calling forth answering shouts from numerous little groups of [Navy] gold and blue. The latter, though fewer in number, make up for it by their enthusiasm.”27

It was a warm day with clear skies. The umpires were from the National League: Ernie Quigley behind home plate and Fred Lincoln (who was an NL umpire in 1914) was on the bases.

Army scored first. In the bottom of the first inning, after Merillat singled, Mitchell slugged a home run to right-center field. In the top of the second, Navy got three singles to load the bases with no outs. But Neyland escaped the jam, retiring the next three batters, the first two by strikeouts.

Navy rallied for four runs in the top of the third inning. Bascom Smith led off with a single. Bud Fisher singled to right, sending Smith to third, and Fisher stole second. Ranney Adams, Navy’s leading hitter, singled to drive in both runners.28 And Walter “Spuds” Hicks, the Navy captain, slammed the ball to left field for a two-run home run.

Army evened the score in the bottom of the third. After Blodgett walked Merillat, Mitchell drilled a ball that went between the legs of the right fielder, Mike Moran. Merillat and Mitchell scored. Mitchell was credited with a single, Moran with an error.

In the bottom of the fourth, Army added two more runs. Hobbs led off with a double to center field and came home on Prichard’s single. With the bases loaded, the speedy Merillat beat out an infield hit to bring in a run, and Army led 6–4.

In the top of the seventh, Navy loaded the bases again with two walks and a bunt single. With one out, Hicks drove the ball to deep center field where Merillat made a sensational running catch. The runner on third tagged up and scored, but Merillat threw out the runner on second trying to reach third. Years later, Neyland said Merillat’s catch-and-throw was one of the greatest plays he had ever seen.29

Trailing 6–5 in the top of the ninth, Navy threatened. Fisher led off with a double down the right-field line, his fourth hit of the game. Adams grounded to Gerhardt at third base, who fumbled the ball but caught Fisher in a rundown for the first out. Andy McFall hit sharply back to Neyland, who threw to second to get a force out of Adams. Then, after Hicks singled to center, Bert Rodgers flied out to Hobbs in right field for the final out.30 Thus, for the seventh year in a row, Strang’s team had defeated Navy.

CONCLUSION

Three games remained in the Army season. Ten thousand fans saw Army defeat the Seventh Regiment of the New York National Guard, 15-8, on May 31.31 Two days later, Sarcka lost a pitchers’ duel, 1–0, to Charles “Tink” Slater of Syracuse University.32 It was the first time Army had been shut out since Fordham’s Walsh did it in 1913. In the season finale on June 5, Neyland pitched a two-hitter in a 6–1 victory over Catholic University of Washington, DC.

In compiling an 18–3 record, Army outscored its opponents 158 to 83. The team batting average was .318, while opponents batted only .212. Gerhardt led the team with a .408 average. He was followed by Mitchell (.356), Hobbs (.345), Coffin (.333), Prichard (.319), Bradley (.313), Oliphant (.312), Merillat (.302), Sarcka (.286), and Neyland (.231). Hobbs led in slugging average (.560), and Gerhardt stole the most bases (23). Neyland achieved an 11–1 record with 90 strikeouts in 94 innings. Sarcka was 6–1 with 51 strikeouts in 56⅔ innings.33

Neyland and Hobbs were selected to Vanity Fair’s All-American team. Both men turned down lucrative offers from major-league teams, instead choosing to continue their military careers. Neyland pitched one more season for Army and again defeated Navy. In four seasons, his career record was 35–5. Years later, he would gain fame as coach of the University of Tennessee football team. Neyland Stadium in Knoxville is named for him.

On D-Day, June 6, 1944, Lt. Gen. Omar Bradley was in charge of the First Army and its 520,000 soldiers.35 Among its units were the 29th Infantry Division led by Maj. Gen. Charles Gerhardt, and the 30th Infantry Division led by Maj. Gen. Leland Hobbs. Gerhardt’s division landed at Omaha Beach on D-Day, and Hobbs’s division landed there five days later. Meanwhile in Italy, Maj. Gen. Vernon Prichard took charge of the 1st Armored Division, which had entered Rome.36 And in China, Col. Robert Neyland became the commanding officer of the American supply base at Kunming.37

STEPHEN V. RICE, PhD (steve@stephenvrice.com), a member of SABR since 2013, is the author of more than 180 articles for the SABR BioProject and Games Project. He is a computer scientist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital where he develops software that is used for cancer research and diagnosis.

Sources

The Howitzer: The Year Book of the United States Corps of Cadets, 1916.

Army West Point Baseball 2025 Record Book.

Notes

1. Eisenhower loved baseball. He tried out for the Army baseball team sometime before 1915 but failed to make the team.

2. Autobiographical manuscript of college days, General Robert Neyland Papers, MS 1890, University of Tennessee Libraries, Knoxville, Special Collections.

3. “Strength in Army Nine,” New York Tribune, March 7, 1915, II–6.

4. “Col. Merillat Gets Patterson Field Position,” San Bernardino (California) Sun, December 29, 1943, 11; “Col. Hugh Mitchell Head of Camp Murphy,” Galion (Ohio) Inquirer, August 22, 1942, 3.

5. “Army Scores at Will and Shuts Out N.Y.U.,” New York Sun, April 1, 1915, 8.

6. “Stevens Starts the Season with Defeat,” Hudson Observer (Hoboken, New Jersey), April 8, 1915, 12.

7. “Army Shuts Out Rutgers,” New York Tribune, April 11, 1915, II–3.

8. “Army 8, Colgate 0,” Boston Globe, April 12, 1914, 18.

9. “West Point Wins Uphill Battle,” New York Times, April 15, 1915, 11; “West Point’s Fifth Baseball Victory,” New York Times, April 16, 1915, 11.

10. “Harvard Held to Three Hits,” Boston Globe, April 18, 1915, 10.

11. “Oliphant Knocks Ball into Fort,” New York Times, April 22, 1915, 11.

12. “Neyland Pitches Classy Ball,” Pittsburgh Press, April 25, 1915, Sports, 5.

13. “Swarthmore Falls before Army Bunch,” Pittsburgh Gazette Times, April 29, 1915, 11.

14. “Easy for the Army,” Washington Star, May 2, 1915, 5–3.

15. “Now It’s Eleven in a Row for the Army Nine,” New York Tribune, May 6, 1915, 13.

16. “Army’s 12th Straight and Neyland’s 20th,” New York Sun, May 9, 1915, Second Section, 3.

17. “Army Bats Hum,” Springfield (Massachusetts) Republican, May 13, 1915, 13.

18. The Howitzer, 1916, 250; “Walsh Puts Crimp in Neyland’s Record,” New York Times, May 16, 1915, Sports, 2.

19. “Neyland Bows to Walsh as Before,” New York Sun, May 16, 1915, Second Section, 3.

20. “Dips Army in Whitewash,” New York Tribune, May 18, 1913, II–2.

21. “Dr. ‘Billy’ Walsh Is Giant Physician,” Hartford Courant, December 22, 1922, 20.

22. “Fifth Straight for Sarcka,” New York Sun, May 20, 1915, 8.

23. “Beats Army Team,” Springfield Republican, May 23, 1915, 6.

24. The Howitzer, 1916, 251.

25. “Unbeaten Sarcka Repeats,” New York Sun, May 27, 1915, 8.

26. 1916 Navy yearbook, The Lucky Bag, 333.

27. The Howitzer, 1916, 252.

28. Richard Ranney Adams batted .402 for Navy in 1915; “Tigers and Old Eli Show Big Decline,” Baltimore Sun, June 21, 1915, 5.

29. Bob Gilbert, Neyland: The Gridiron General (Savannah, Georgia: Golden Coast Publishing Co., 1990), 44.

30. Descriptions of the Army-Navy game in: The Howitzer, 1916, 252–56; “Navy Hits Neyland, but Army Wins,” New York Times, May 30, 1915, 3–1; “Navy Loses to Army,” Baltimore Sun, May 30, 1915, Sports, 1; “Army Nine Wins from the Navy in Close Game,” New York Tribune, May 30, 1915, II–3; “Navy Bows to Army in Annual Struggle on Baseball Field,” Annapolis (Maryland) Capital, May 29, 1915, 1.

31. “10,000 at West Point Game,” New York Times, June 1, 1915, 13.

32. “Army Nine Shut Out,” New York Tribune, June 3, 1915, 12.

33. 1915 Army baseball statistics were tabulated by the author from box scores.

34. “Vanity Fair’s All-American College Baseball Team,” Vanity Fair, July 1915, 30.

35. Kevin Braafladt, “First Army Played Key Role on D-Day,” US Army website, June 2, 2021, https://www.army.mil/article/247137/first_army_played_key_role_on_d_day, accessed July 1, 2025.

36. “Old Ironsides–First into Rome,” Armor, July-August 1990, 17–19.

37. Gilbert, Neyland: The Gridiron General, 156. Neyland was later promoted to brigadier (one-star) general.

Lou Gehrig was deemed ineligible for all sports for the 1921–22 school year at Columbia University after playing in 12 games for the Hartford Senators, a pro team. (ROBERT MULDOON)

Columbia University record books state that Lou Gehrig hit seven home runs during his single 19-game college season in 1923.1 But the record books somehow overlook three additional home runs Gehrig hit for Columbia, likely because he hit them in non-college games he played in before he had graduated high school, and were against professional minor league teams (including a Brooklyn Negro League team, which was considered a minor league team at the time).

Here, for the first time, his “lost” home runs are “found,” along with details of another home run hit off of the teenaged Gehrig’s bat—the longest home run ever hit at Columbia’s South Field.

GEHRIG’S TWO “LOST” HOME RUNS

April 6, 1921—vs. Hartford Senators

In spring 1921, while still attending Commerce High School on 65th Street, 17-year-old Lou Gehrig enrolled in a Columbia extension course, prior to matriculation that fall. With Gehrig on campus but still finishing up his high school diploma, Columbia coach Andy Coakley, a former American League pitcher who played in the 1905 World Series, permitted him to participate in preseason workouts and non-college games.2

That April, Columbia hosted the Class A Eastern League Hartford Senators at South Field, located on the main campus between 114th and 116th Streets off Broadway.

“Coach Coakley took advantage of the game to try out some of his ineligible men,” the Columbia Spectator noted.3 In two at bats, in a 4–3 loss, the 17-year-old prodigy Gehrig smashed two home runs against pitcher “Big” Alton Durgin.

“The first went into the center field bleachers, almost clearing them and reaching the street while the second did clear the barriers and bounced out to Broadway somewhere,” the Hartford Courant reported.4

The second “went sailing out of the enclosure past a big sundial and almost into the School of Mines,” added the Hartford Times.5

The pitcher Durgin, “the Maine Giant, who has to stoop to get in any room” was recently signed by Hartford manager Arthur Irwin, who claimed “the Pine Stater has the makings of one of the best pitchers in the country in him.”6

The Courant, while butchering Gehrig’s last name, predicted: “They (Columbia) uncovered one slugger of the “Babe” Ruth type, who is going to make a name for himself on the Diamond when he becomes a regular student at the university. His name is Gahrig…”7

It wasn’t the first time Gehrig had attracted widespread attention. In 1920, just one year earlier, his City Champion Commerce High played Chicago’s Lane Tech at Cubs Park (later renamed Wrigley) for the two-city championship before 10,000 fans. With two out in the ninth, Gehrig, who turned 17 just a week earlier, hit a grand slam to seal a 12–6 win.

“The ball sailed out high and far and cleared the right wall screen by many feet, finally landing in Sheffield Avenue and bouncing to a front porch across the street. It was a blow of which any big leaguer would have been proud and was walloped by a boy who hasn’t yet started to shave,” the Chicago Tribune wrote.8

Soon after the Hartford exhibition, Irwin, nicknamed “The Old Sleuth,” signed Gehrig to play for the Senators beginning in June. Using the alias “Lou Lewis,” Gehrig had 12 hits in 46 at bats with no homers over 12 games. But the ruse to protect his amateur status failed. He was declared ineligible for all sports his freshman year, 1921–22.

Just weeks later, on July 16, Irwin fell or jumped from the steamer Calvin Austin on a trip from New York to Boston. Once described as “one of the slimier men in baseball,” he was living a double life, with families in both cities, and also suffering from terminal stomach cancer. 9

After Gehrig’s suspension ended a year later, he returned to South Field and Columbia athletics in October 1922, but not playing baseball. He celebrated the end of his suspension by playing his second sport, football, scoring three touchdowns in a 48–7 romp over Ursinus. Soon after, the 200-pounder was switched from halfback to the line, while still handling kick-offs. Columbia finished 4–4–1.

Baseball opened in February 1923 with pitcher and catcher drills. Coakley used his professional baseball connections to bring in Hall of Fame pitcher Chief Bender, his former Philadelphia Athletics teammate, to work with the team.10 In a March exhibition, the 19-year-old Gehrig, a first baseman and pitcher, picked up right where he left off two years ago.

GEHRIG’S THIRD “LOST” HOME RUN

March 27, 1923—vs. Brooklyn Royal Giants

In the first practice game, the Brooklyn Royal Giants, “a strong negro semi-pro aggregation” in the Eastern Colored League, defeated Columbia 6–5 at South Field.11 In addition to pitching three innings, Gehrig “was responsible for the Blue and White’s circuit drive, which he pounded out in the seventh, during which frame four runs were scored by the [Columbia] Lion.”12

Gehrig hit the homer off Otis “Lefty” Starks, who was in the midst of a 14-year Negro League career. The Giants’ starter, Andrew “String Bean” Williams, aged 49 or 50 at the time, kept a rabbit’s foot with him on the mound for luck, and had a 16-year pro career. String Bean once blamed a loss on forgetting his lucky charm.13

In his first official college game on April 3, Gehrig got off to an inauspicious start: he was ejected. “NYU Wins Weird Encounter” read the Columbia Spectator headline as Columbia, using five pitchers, was trounced 12–4.14 Relieving in the eighth, Gehrig was tossed for protesting a pitch. Batting third, he had one hit in three tries.

At Cornell on April 22, Gehrig clubbed his first official collegiate homer while notching 10 strikeouts in an 8–3 victory. “His circuit clout was the longest ever driven out on the new Cornell Field, the ball sailing high over the right field fence,” the Spectator wrote.15

At Rutgers, on April 26, Gehrig launched two more “circuit clouts” in a 9–4 victory in New Brunswick.16

His power surge continued as Columbia avenged its loss to NYU, 7–2. Gehrig’s fourth official home run and his first at South Field that season, “cleared the right field fence and bounded onto 116th Street,” the Spectator noted.17

In 1923, 116th Street was buzzing with two-way traffic, but today it is closed off as College Walk for pedestrians only. But back then, it traveled east behind the Journalism Building (which still stands at 2950 Broadway), and beyond the center field and right field grandstands.

The New York Times added more details to the location of Gehrig’s NYU blast to right field: “He put his 200 pounds into one of Carlson’s fast ones and sent it over the stands into 116th St for one of the longest homers ever made on South Field.”18

By now, the 19-year-old hitting prodigy was drawing comparisons: “Gehrig lived up to his reputation as the Babe Ruth of Columbia.”19

In an 11–3 romp over Cornell at home on May 11, Gehrig blasted his fifth official homer in his 14th game: “a tremendous clout that cleared the right field fence with many feet to spare.”20

Days later, against Fordham, Gehrig struck again at South Field with his sixth collegiate blast, while striking out 12, in a 8–2 win. The home run, which “went into the center field stands,” did not exit the grounds this time.21

Gehrig would hit one more homer for Columbia. And it was a homer that people would talk about for years.

In this 1920s aerial view of South Field, 116th Street extends right to left, behind the grandstands in right field and right-center, then proceeds directly behind the Journalism Building. The ancient sundial sits between the right field and right-center stands, just in front of 116th Street. (ROBERT MULDOON)

GEHRIG’S “LONGEST” HOME RUN

May 19, 1923—vs. Wesleyan

Gehrig entered Columbia’s May 19 contest against Wesleyan with a .516 batting average and six total home runs. The stage was set for his final, mythic home run, a Bunyanesque blow destined to create a legend all its own.

The New York Times set the scene, precisely tracking the “longest home run ever seen on South Field” on its parabolic trajectory to its final resting spot: “Gehrig’s terrific smash rose gently until it was above the border of the infield and outfield, then sailed on a straight line over the center field fence onto the small campus surrounding the School of Journalism.”22

Other papers followed the ball’s epic arc, too. “The four base clout was the longest hit ever made at Columbia. The sphere went over the center field stands and hit the School of Journalism building,” the Hartford Courant reported.23

The Spectator pinpointed additional details: “The prodigious smash cleared the fence between the North and West stands in center field and bounded in front of the Journalism Building.”24

The Times placed the blast into a proper historical context: “Gehrig did more than mark an epoch in hitting on the fading history of old South Field, which will give way to Baker Field as the Columbia diamond next year.”25

In fact, Columbia played two more seasons on South Field. But Gehrig’s was the last home run to ever leave the grounds. In 1924, Columbia hit but one homer all season—at West Point.26 In 1925, shortstop Charlie Kennedy smashed one to left, but the ball did not leave the stadium: “The ball was fielded back, but a home run was given on the ground rules.” By 1926, Columbia finally began playing at Baker Field in North Manhattan.

And so Gehrig’s “longest” home run was also the “last” home run to ever leave the South Field grounds. With Columbia going 10–8–1, he finished the 1923 season with a .444 batting average and seven home runs, a record that stood until 1978 (when the number of games per season increased to 32). Today, Gehrig still holds the single season slugging average record (.937). The New York Yankees, who had been scouting him all season, signed the “former idol of South Field” in April.27

NOTES ON SOUTH FIELD

From the late 1800s until the mid-1920s, South Field, between 114th and 116th Streets, was home to Columbia football and baseball. Home plate stood roughly in front of today’s John Jay Hall, built in 1927 at 511 W. 114th Street.

Center field lay spread out before the Journalism Building, 116th Street, with two-way flowing traffic, but closed off as today’s College Walk, extended behind Journalism and east past the center and right field grandstands.

Hamilton Hall stood in foul territory beyond the right field fence, while Hartley Hall was behind the right field foul line and first base grandstands.

The ancient Class of 1885 Memorial Sundial, a seven-foot sphere of green granite, stood behind the right-center field grand stands, but in front of 116th Street. In 1946, the large cracking sphere was removed, but the base still remains, and it is a popular rendezvous spot today.

Behind the center-left field stands was Furnald Hall (still at 2940 Broadway), with busy Broadway behind it. A well-struck ball over the left field fence could bound out into Broadway, snarling traffic.

Butler Library, built in 1934 at 535 W. 114th Street, today stands roughly along the third base and left field foul lines of South Field.

Here is a 1920s view of the ancient sundial beyond right field at South Field. It sits just before 116th Street with two-way traffic flowing east and west. Today 116th Street is closed off as a pedestrian-only College Walk, and the giant globe atop the sundial has been removed, leaving only the base, a popular meeting spot. (ROBERT MULDOON)

THE MYTHOLOGY OF GEHRIG’S COLUMBIA HOME RUNS

Jonathan Eig’s 2006 book Luckiest Man regaled readers with much of the mythology of Gehrig’s home runs:

For decades, Columbia students and faculty would recall those home runs as if they had been rocket blasts. One bash reportedly broke a window in Hartley Hall, another was said to have smashed a sundial, dedicated to the class of 1885, 450 feet from home plate, and yet another was reported to have nearly knocked out a dean on the steps of the Low Memorial Library.28

The movie Pride of the Yankees dramatized a window-shattering shot to center—where the Journalism Building, today renamed Pulitzer Hall, stands.29 The Columbia Hall of Fame, where Gehrig was inducted, recounted an “opposite-field shot into a second-story window of the Journalism School.”30

In Iron Horse, biographer and Columbia alumnus Ray Robinson quoted a first-hand account from John Donaldson, a football teammate of Gehrig’s:

I was sitting one afternoon, cramming for an exam in Hartley Hall, when I heard a bunch of students down below give a big yell. I looked out the window just in time to see a ball bouncing off the top of the sundial, maybe some 450 feet from home plate. And there was Lou standing there, in his baggy knickers, grinning from ear to ear. You don’t forget things like that.31

Broken dorm windows, smashed ancient sun dials, berobed deans strafed by aerial bombardment, journalism classrooms in the crosshairs—Gehrig’s legend has spawned many myths. But even with all the embellishments, Gehrig’s heroics may, in fact, be understated.

His home runs are officially seven—but those are only the ones hit against college opponents in the 1923 season. If you dig deeper, beneath the misty shrouds of folklore and hyperbole, you’ll discover the three “lost” home runs—against professional teams and pitchers, including Negro League players denied the chances to play in Organized Baseball.

And so, if you count those, then the legend of Lou Gehrig grows greater still: 10 career home runs, all hit as a teenager, including the “last” and “longest” ever hit out of South Field in Morningside Heights.

AUTHOR’S PLEA

As a Columbia Journalism graduate, I hope one day to find a marker on the marble steps of Pulitzer Hall reading: “Lou Gehrig hit 10 home runs for Columbia between 1921–23, including South Field’s longest on May 19, 1923, against Wesleyan, launched from home plate in front of today’s Jay Hall to these very steps.”

Or maybe a marker could be placed at the sundial, near today’s College Walk, once bustling as 116th Street. Wherever the plaque landed, it would be a landmark and fitting tribute to one of America’s enduring heroes.

And, greater still, if one day ALS—“Lou Gehrig’s Disease”—is cured, the marker will stand forever as a living shrine and testimony to one of mankind’s greatest victories.

ROBERT MULDOON is a graduate of Phillips Andover Academy, Bates College, and Columbia Journalism School. He is the author of the historical novel Brass Bonanza Plays Again, wherein Rube Waddell appears as a guardian angel to star-crossed, homeless goon Tiger Burns. It’s a heartwarming tale of redemption for both. The book is available from the author at MuldoonRA@gmail.com.

Notes

1. https://gocolumbialions.com/honors/hall-of-fame/lou-gehrig/1.

2. Norton Chellgren, “The Short Career of Lou Lewis,” SABR Baseball Research Journal, 1975.

3. “Blue And White Batsmen Oppose NYU Today,” Columbia Spectator, April 7, 1921: 1.

4. “Irwin’s Tribe Wins In Game Against Collegians,” Hartford Courant, April 7, 1921: 16.

5. “The Short Career of Lou Lewis.”

6. “Over The Wire From Hackensack,” Hartford Courant, April 7, 1921: 16 (Note: Durgin did not stick with Hartford and later pitched for the University of Vermont).

7. “Irwin’s Tribe Wins In Game Against Collegians.”

8. “New York Preps Down Lane Tech in Hit Fest, 12–6,” Chicago Tribune, June 27, 1920.

9. Daniel Levitt, Ed Barrow: The Bulldog Who Built the Yankees’ First Dynasty (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008), 37–38.

10. “Battery Squad Stages Hard Drill in the Cage,” Columbia Spectator, March 9, 1923: 1.

11. “Lion Nine Will Face St. Johns Saturday,” Columbia Spectator, March 28, 1923: 1.

12. “Columbia Varsity Loses to Royal Giants,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, March 28, 1923: 23.

13. “Ponies Humble Giants in Fast, Well-Played Game,” The Morning Union, April 21, 1923: 16.

14. “NYU Wins Weird Encounter,” Columbia Spectator, April 4, 1923: 1.

15. “Gehrig Stars as Lion Routs Cornell Nine,” Columbia Spectator, April 23, 1923: 1.

16. “Home Runs Mark Win Over Rutgers,” Columbia Spectator, April 27, 1923: 1.

17. “Gehrig’s Playing Breaks Violet’s Winning Streak,” Columbia Spectator, April 30, 1923: 1.

18. “Columbia Checks N.Y.U on Diamond,” New York Times, April 29, 1923: 1.

19. “Columbia Gets Revenge for its N.Y.U Defeat,” Brooklyn Eagle, April 29, 1923: 74.

20. “Gehrig Checks Red and White for 11–3 Victory,” Columbia Spectator, May 14, 1923: 1.

21. “Fordham Fails To Hit Gehrig; Lion Wins 8–2,” Columbia Spectator, May 16, 1923: 1.

22. “Gehrig Stars in Columbia Victory,” New York Times, May 20, 1923: 2.

23. “Columbia Bats 500 As It Wins From Wesleyan,” Hartford Courant, May 20, 1923: 36.

24. “Locals Crush Wesleyan Nine With 19 Hits,” Columbia Spectator, May 21, 1923: 1.

25. “Gehrig Stars in Columbia Victory.”

26. “Three Lion Players Are Tied For Lead in Batting Average,” Columbia Spectator, May 23, 1924: 1.

27. “A New ‘Sisler’ on the Horizon,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, June 14, 1923: 26.

28. Jonathan Eig, Luckiest Man (Simon & Schuster, 2006), 37.

29. Leslie A. Zukor, “One Hit Wonder: Busting a Major Myth About Lou Gehrig,” Columbia Magazine, Spring/Summer 2023.

30. https://gocolumbialions.com/honors/hall-of-fame/lou-gehrig/1.

31. Iron Horse, 52.

Frank Shellenback was the last legal spitball pitcher when he retired in 1938, but it took several more years for the “wet one” to disappear for good. (SABR-RUCKER ARCHIVE)

When Frank Shellenback retired as a player and took a job as a coach with the St. Louis Browns in 1938, it appeared that so-called Organized Baseball’s last legal spitball pitcher had finally passed from the scene. And it was true, at the time.1

But during its heyday in the Deadball Era, the spitball—maddeningly elusive for batters and treacherous for fielders—was no easier to get rid of than it was to hit or catch. True to its nature, for more than two decades after the first attempts to ban it, the slippery, much-reviled spitter—denounced as “sloppy, dirty and disgusting” as far back as 1909—took a long, strange farewell tour through baseball’s minor leagues.2 Contrary to what has been widely believed and often repeated—that the last legal spitball was thrown in 1934—the last officially sanctioned spitball was not thrown until 1941.3

Like the spitball itself, its last legal purveyors were long-running throwbacks to deadball days. Shellenback was typical; he won nine games for the Chicago White Sox as a 19-year-old rookie in 1918. But when two of the Sox top pitchers returned from World War I service—Red Faber from the Navy and Lefty Williams from war-related work in a shipyard—Shellenback figured less prominently in the team’s plans. Then, just as baseball was moving to ban the spitball, the White Sox decided they didn’t need him. However, there might have been an element of spite in the decision. The pitcher recalled years later that as the deadline approached for finalizing the list of established spitballers who would be permitted to continue using the pitch in the major leagues, he was involved in “a little contract wrangle” with the White Sox.4 Demoted to the minor leagues, Shellenback was ineligible to be grandfathered. Ultimately 17 were granted the career-saving privilege of throwing the spitter as long as they remained in the big leagues. Shellenback was forever barred from using his best pitch in the majors.

Fortunately for him, the minor leagues did not fall into lockstep with the majors with regard to the wet one. While the major leagues moved to get rid of it, each minor league was left to set its own course. Some circuits beat the majors to the punch: The Western League and the American Association banned the pitch before the 1918 season, the latter instructing umpires to fine suspected cheaters $25 for each offense.5,6 Most bans were immediate and complete, without exceptions, exemptions, grace periods or grandfathers. A few leagues followed the example of the majors and created their own grandfather lists. Some dealt with would-be spitballers on a case-by-case basis. This patchwork of differing policies sometimes required negotiated compromises when the champions of different leagues met in post-season series. Examples emerged almost immediately, such as the “Minor World Series” pitting the city of Vernon of the “wet” Pacific Coast League against St. Paul of the “dry” American Association in 1919.7 As The Sporting News acknowledged, there was “no uniformity regarding the spitter in the leagues of professional baseball.” The editors disapproved of the pitch, but they weren’t concerned about this state of affairs “because it will be only a year or two until it passes out.”8

Four years after his retirement, Shellenback was among the first five players chosen for the Pacific Coast League Hall of Fame.15 When SABR’s Rob Neyer attempted to rank the best spitballs of all time, legal or otherwise, his Top 10 featured six Hall of Famers—and Frank Shellenback.16

The baseball journey of spitballer Clarence Mitchell was long and convoluted. (SABR-RUCKER ARCHIVE)

Shellenback may have been the most noteworthy spitballer to pass through the PCL in the 1920s and ’30s, but he was not the only one. Vean Gregg, not a spitballer for most of his career, got permission to try it when he made an abortive comeback attempt with Sacramento in 1927.17 Doc Crandall and Harry Krause were on the league’s 1929 list of seven registered spitballers, though they were both near the end their careers.18 As they faded out, Shellenback found himself a member of an increasingly exclusive club. By the end of the 1932 season, he was “the only spitball pitcher of record in the minors.”19 But the number ticked up again in the mid-1930s when longtime PCL campaigners Ray Keating and Al “Pudgy” Gould, both in their 40s, attempted comebacks. As late as 1934, David P. Fleming, president of the Los Angeles Angels, was sufficiently exercised over the league’s continuing hospitality to aging spitball artists that he threatened to protest to Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis.20

The immediate cause of Fleming’s annoyance was the signing of two of the major leagues’ 17 grandfathers, Jack Quinn and Clarence Mitchell, by the Hollywood Stars and the Mission Reds. Several of these throwbacks simply refused to go away. And the longer they persisted, the more controversy trailed after them. Because just as the major leagues’ ban on the spitball did not automatically apply to the minors, the grandfathers’ exemption did not cover all of what was then recognized as Organized Baseball.21 Wherever they went outside the American and National leagues, the old-timers had to seek permission to use the spitball on a league-by-league basis, repeatedly reigniting debate over the pitch.

After throwing the major leagues’ last legal spitball in 1934, the Cardinals hired Burleigh Grimes as a player-manager in their minor league system, where he continued throwing his spitball until he retired at the end of the 1935 season. (SABR-RUCKER ARCHIVE)

The experience of Burleigh Grimes is instructive. Released by the Pittsburgh Pirates after delivering the major leagues’ last legal spitball in September 1934, he was approached by the St. Louis Cardinals about a managing job in their extensive minor-league system. Since Grimes still wanted to pitch (and the organization wanted him to, needing a gate attraction to justify his salary demands), the Cards went shopping for a league that would have him.22 He was turned down by the Western Association and the Piedmont League. Grimes sent an inquiry to the Mission Reds, but they showed no interest.23 With the start of the season approaching, he pursued no further PCL possibilities. The Cardinals finally found “Old Stubblebeard” a home with the Bloomington Bloomers of the Class B Three-I League in 1935, where he closed out his pitching career by going 10–5.24

Grimes wasn’t the first spitballing grandfather the Cardinals had sought to employ in their farm system. In 1931, they had asked the American Association to let Bill Doak pitch for Columbus. Spittin’ Bill, 40 years old, hadn’t pitched in nearly two years and was described as “out of a job and broke.”25 Cardinals general manager Branch Rickey framed his application as an effort to help out a needy old ballplayer, but some observers suspected the wily Rickey thought Doak could still be useful stifling late-inning rallies with a pitch that most opposing batters had never seen before. Rickey was pilloried for trying to sneak the “objectional spitball” back into the league, which quickly shot down the request.26, 27

As for Quinn and Mitchell, the two graybeards whose Pacific Coast sojourn had triggered a flap there in 1934, both still had miles to go exploring increasingly obscure corners of professional baseball. Quinn, hired to manage Johnstown in the Class C Middle Atlantic League in July 1935, immediately sought license to throw the spitball.28 He was still awaiting a decision two weeks later when his Johnstown Johnnies found themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of hits in Zanesville, Ohio. With the game clearly out of control, Quinn—who wasn’t on his team’s active roster—received the opposing manager’s one-time-only permission to trot out the spitball in hopes of saving what was left of Johnstown’s pitching staff. “Employing a mouthful of slippery elm to raise the moisture to wet the horsehide,” Quinn, a month past his 52nd birthday, “displayed the same cunning that kept him active in the big show for more than 25 years.”29, 30 He got the last six outs without giving up a run, allowing just two infield hits. Final score was 18–0. Quinn never pitched again.

Meanwhile Clarence Mitchell, one of two left-handers among the 17 major-league grandfathers, went on a particularly long and convoluted journey. By this time even The Sporting News, never a fan of the spitball, had argued without success that the American Association should accept Mitchell and suggested it would be “a gracious thing” if the few surviving grandfathers were “permitted to pursue their calling in either the majors or the minors until they must call it a day.”31, 32 After two years in the Pacific Coast League, Mitchell gravitated to his native Nebraska. In 1936 he joined the Omaha Robin Hoods after his “saliva tossing” garnered the unanimous approval of members of the Western League, which had been officially dry for more than 15 years.33, 34 In 1937 he served as player-manager of the Mayfield Clothiers in the Class D Kentucky-Illinois-Tennessee (“Kitty”) League, where he was described (inaccurately) as “the only spitball hurler left in active baseball competition.”35

Mitchell spent 1938 and 1939 managing and pitching for a semipro team in Broken Bow, Nebraska.36 Then he got one more chance in the professional ranks. With a unanimous vote by its owners, the Class B Southeastern League welcomed him as the first spitball pitcher in its four-year history, at the same time insisting that “only Mitchell would be given this privilege.”37, 38, 39, 40 Joining the Meridian Bears of Mississippi, the 49-year-old spitballer took the mound once during his brief time with the team. The box score for the May 9, 1940, game shows “C. Mitchell”—not to be confused with the Bears’ 25-year-old center fielder Joe Bob Mitchell—among a parade of six Meridian pitchers as the Bears lost 15–14 in 11 innings to the Anniston Rams. A week later, with Meridian in last place, Clarence Mitchell was fired.42

As of February 2025, Baseball Reference showed Mitchell in one game in the Texas League in 1942, when he was 51 years old. Contemporary news coverage makes it clear that pitcher was actually the spitballer’s 20-year-old son, Clarence Mitchell Jr., who was released after a single relief appearance for Oklahoma City.43 But the idea of wet ones still flying in that neighborhood wouldn’t have been particularly startling. Throughout the spitball’s slow, stubborn retreat into oblivion, no other organization was as spitter-friendly as the Texas League.

Snipe Conley became a folk hero in Texas, playing and managing in the Texas League from 1918 to 1927 before mounting a comeback attempt at age 36. (WIKIMEDIA COMMONS)

And that, fittingly, is where we meet James Patrick Michael “Snipe” Conley.44 Conley was born in Pennsylvania in 1892. He started the 1913 season with the Reading, Pennsylvania, club in the United States League, an outlaw league that was not a party to the National Agreement that governed affiliated baseball.45 When that circuit folded, he joined a Bloomer Girls team which, like many ostensibly “all-girl” nines of the time, strengthened its lineup with two or three men.46,47 Conley broke into affiliated baseball in 1914 and spent two years with the Baltimore Terrapins in the Federal League. As a rookie, he showed “speed, a fine curve and a fairly nice slow ball.”48 It’s also possible Conley learned the spitball in Baltimore, where his teammates included the noted spitballers Jack Quinn and Frank Smith. After the demise of the Federal League he landed in the Texas League, where he was employing the moistened delivery at least occasionally when he won 19 straight games in 1917 and was drafted from Dallas by the Cincinnati Reds.49 He lasted a month with the Reds in 1918; they were about to send him to Toronto, but he asked to go back to Dallas instead.50 He pitched and managed there until 1927 and became a folk hero in Texas, recalled in later years as a “fabulous spitball ace.”51

In 1923, the league also permitted each team “to carry two spitball pitchers…[whose] names must be certified to the league president and to all umpires.”56 New spitballers were still permitted to enter the league in 1924.57 By the end of the 1925 season, 11 of them were active and in 1927, the league still tolerated one on every team.58 The Sporting News, which classed the spitball with the emery ball, the nail ball and other freak deliveries as an offense against “the ethics and honor of the sport,” periodically chided the Texas League for “doing something that is contrary to the rules of baseball” and for trafficking in what was potentially “an unorthodox and an illegal game.”59, 60 The editors added that the circuit apparently persisted in this perverse behavior “merely because it happens to be the Texas League.”61

Over 12 seasons, Conley won 148 games for Dallas. In 1928, he was hired to manage Jackson in the Class D Cotton States League. Conley, who usually batted over .280 in the minor leagues and “fielded his position like a shortstop,” did some pitching for the Senators (possibly without the spitball) but played mostly the infield and outfield.62, 63 He led the team to third place in the first half of the split season but was fired after a slow start to the second half.64 With that it appeared that Conley was finished in pro ball at age 36.

He caught on with a semipro team sponsored by a West Texas oil company and that’s where George Schepps, president of the Dallas Rebels, found him in 1941, still pitching.65 At the time, the Texas League was classified A-1, an intermediate step between Class A and the minors’ top level, Class AA, and Schepps believed Conley could still win at that level “because he can use his spitball and because he is still in perfect physical condition.” Conley would be the beneficiary of a quirky league rule that permitted any approved spitballer who had been in the league in 1925 to return any time with his full arsenal of weapons.66

Snipe Conley was 49 years old—even older than some news accounts had it—when he took the mound against the San Antonio Missions on June 25, 1941.67 The final score was an inelegant 11–6, but Conley went the distance and secured the victory. His statistics were spoiled only by five runs in the ninth inning. Before that, he was “just as crafty, just as speedy and just as effective” as in his prime. One reporter covering the contest observed that Conley was facing batters “who were going to grammar school” in 1917 when he won 19 straight.68 In fact, at least five of San Antonio’s players, including future American League stolen-base leader Bob Dillinger, hadn’t been born yet.

Some suggested that Conley’s resurrection was a stunt, but he had won an official league game and his performance was sufficiently encouraging to earn him another start.69 It came under the lights in Dallas on July 27, 1941, and by that time another old spitballer had been revived to go against him. The Cuban right-hander Oscar Tuero had pitched for the St. Louis Cardinals from 1918 to 1920 and was an early candidate for grandfather status but, like Frank Shellenback, missed out when he was sent down before the list was finalized.70 Since then he had led a nomadic existence, laboring through 1939 in more than a half-dozen minor leagues and in Cuba, probably getting by most of the time without the spitball. A typical news item used the past tense when it said Tuero “was a spitball pitcher” before it was outlawed.71 He once claimed he was glad the pitch was banned;72 on the other hand, late in his career he petitioned, unsuccessfully, to fling spitballs in the Carolina League.73

Tuero might have harbored dreams of a major-league comeback as late as 1933, when he was in spring training with the Cincinnati Reds.74 Listed at 5‘81⁄2” and 158 pounds in his youth, by 1941 he was 47 years old, graying, balding and “rotund,” pitching batting practice for the Texas League’s Shreveport Sports.75 Only days after Conley won his first start for Dallas, the Sports activated Tuero. Like Conley, Tuero was still eligible to use the spitter because he was on the Texas League grandfather list and had been in the league in 1925. Shreveport tried him out three times in relief. He allowed two runs in 5 2/3 innings while striking out four, walking none and earning a win on July 4, when he worked in both games of a doubleheader.76 With that the stage was set for a matchup of what the newspapers carefully specified were two “authorized” spitballers.77 Since neither had pitched in Class A-1 or higher in the past two years, another eccentric Texas League rule categorized them both as rookies.78

All these doings were widely publicized. The Associated Press coverage of Conley’s comeback was picked up by papers all over the state, and he was the subject of a long column by J.G. Taylor Spink in The Sporting News.79 On the day of the encounter between Conley and Tuero, the Shreveport Times ran an eight-column, all-caps banner headline: “SPITBALL HURLERS MEET TODAY.”80

A classic pitchers’ duel was probably too much to expect. Tuero lasted just two-thirds of an inning, leaving Conley to carry on and secure his place as affiliated baseball’s last “authorized” spitball pitcher. He completed four innings but retired after failing to get an out in the fifth, holding a 5–4 lead. Dallas won 10–4, the victory credited to reliever Garth “Red” Mann, who struck out eight and did not allow a baserunner in the last five innings.81

That marked the end of what one columnist called the “Snipe Conley comeback hippodrome.”82 Oscar Tuero, however, did pitch again. Dropped by Shreveport after the Dallas game, he was picked up by the last-place Marshall Tigers of the Cotton States League and pitched eight innings in a 3–1 loss to the El Dorado Oilers on August 31, 1941. News coverage in Marshall, Texas, and nearby Shreveport did not indicate he had permission to use the spitball; a pre-game story noted only, in the past tense again, that Tuero “was a whiz back in the days of the spitballer.”83

But Conley wasn’t quite ready to leave the stage. In 1958, at 66, he was the star attraction in a series of old-timers games across Texas. He always “made a great show of wetting the ball” and “had his spitball working” when the old-timers’ appearance contributed to “the largest crowd of the season” for a Texas League game in Dallas.84, 85 In 1973, five years before his death, Snipe Conley was inducted into the Texas Sports Hall of Fame.

MIKE LACKEY was a newspaperman beginning his career at the Lima News in Lima, Ohio, in 1972. He worked successively as a sportswriter, reporter, feature writer, city editor and columnist before retiring in 2008. He was lifelong Cincinnati Reds fan. Mike’s sisters, Lynne, Lara, and Lu Ann, and the entire Lackey family extend their gratitude to SABR for giving Mike a place to celebrate his love of baseball.

Notes

1. “Browns Appoint Former Coast Player as Coach,” Capital City News (Jefferson City, Missouri), November 18, 1938, 12.

2. “Symposium Upon the Spit Ball” in John B. Foster, ed., Spalding’s Official Base Ball Guide (American Sports Publishing Co., 1909), 47.

3. Brian McKenna, “Frank Shellenback,” SABR BioProject, https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/frank-shellenback/.

4. J.G. Taylor Spink, “Looping the Loops,” The Sporting News, March 25, 1953, 10.

5. Sec Taylor, “St. Joseph Will Open Baseball Season at Des Moines on May 1,” Des Moines Register, March 5, 1918, 6.

6. James Crusinberry, “Kick Spitball Out of Pastime at A.A. Session,” Chicago Tribune, December 18, 1917, 15.

7. “Minor World Series Facts,” Los Angeles Evening Express, October 7, 1919, 26.

8. “Making Landis Do the Chores,” The Sporting News, January 27, 1921, 4.

9. “Reprieve for Clarence Mitchell,” The Sporting News, February 8, 1934, 4.

10. Charles F. Faber and Richard B. Faber, Spitballers: The Last Legal Hurlers of the Wet One (McFarland & Co. Inc., 2006), 12.

11. “Veteran Pitcher of Hollywood Sets New Mark,” Modesto (California) Bee, April 6, 1934, 34.

12. “Necrology,” The Sporting News, July 6, 1955, 30.

13. Art Cohn, “Cohn-ing Tower,” Oakland Tribune, May 19, 1938, 24.

14. “Angels Blank Padres, 9 to 0,” Oakland Tribune, August 21, 1938, 16. See also “Seals Whip Padres Twice,” Oakland Tribune, July 24, 1938, 12-A; and “Sacramento Gains Tie With Angels for Coast Top,” Albany (Oregon) Democrat-Herald, August 4, 1938.

15. “Five Chosen for Coast League’s Hall of Fame,” Pasadena Post, April 21, 1942, 8.

16. Rob Neyer, “The Unsanitary Spitball,” in Bill James and Rob Neyer, The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers: An Historical Compendium of Pitching, Pitchers, and Pitches (Simon & Schuster, 2004), 58.

17. Rudy Hickey, “Baseball,” Sacramento Bee, May 17, 1927, 24.

18. “Senators Monopolize Spitball Pitchers,” Pasadena Post, March 16, 1929, 25.

19. “Questions and Answers,” The Sporting News, September 8, 1932, 4.

20. “Files Protest on Moist Ball,” San Bernardino County (California) Sun, May 4, 1934, 20.

21. In the Negro Leagues, the spitball came to prominence just as the white leagues were moving to ban the pitch, and would tolerate it on at least a limited basis nearly as long as they continued to function. Left-hander John “Neck” Stanley pitched until 1948, mostly with the New York Black Yankees; Wendell Smith wrote that after two decades in baseball, Stanley was “permitted to throw the spitball” by virtue of his long service. (Wendell Smith, “The Sports Beat,” Pittsburgh Courier, February 15, 1947, 16.) A similar case involved Bill Byrd, longtime ace of the Baltimore Elite Giants. Only when Byrd was released in 1950 could Sam Lacy report the “departure … of the last colored spitball pitcher.” (Sam Lacy, “From A to Z,” Baltimore Afro-American, July 1, 1950, 17.)

22. “Hutchinson Jolts Cards’ Effort to Get Grimes,” Springfield (Missouri) Leader and Press, February 21, 1935, 6.

23. “Bearwald Declares Grimes Not Due as Star for Missions,” Marysville (California) Appeal-Democrat, March 2, 1935, 1.

24. Joe Niese, Burleigh Grimes: Baseball’s Last Legal Spitballer (The History Press, 2014), 178.

25. “Branch Rickey Starts Fight for Columbus,” Minneapolis Star, April 4, 1931, 19.

26. Charles Johnson, “The Lowdown on Sports,” Minneapolis Star, April 6, 1931, 13.

27. C.E. McBride, “Branch Rickey Fails in Attempt to Land Doak in A.A.,” Kansas City Star, April 25, 1931, 5.

28. “Jack Quinn, Johnstown Manager, Seeks to Use Spitball; Owners in Mid-Atlantic to Vote,” Uniontown (Pennsylvania) Morning Herald, July 17, 1935, 10.

29. “Jawns Call on Jack Quinn to Halt Greylegs as They Turn In 18 to 0 Triumph,” Zanesville (Ohio) Times Recorder, July 31, 1935, 6.

30. “Lefty Heise, Veteran Hurler, May Sign With Local Club,” Zanesville (Ohio) Signal, July 31, 1935, 8.

31. “Tragedy of Clarence Mitchell,” The Sporting News, February 16, 1933, 4.

32. “Reprieve for Mitchell,” The Sporting News, March 23, 1933, 4.

33. “Spitball Chucker to Hoods,” Omaha World-Herald, April 16, 1936, 17.

34. “Owners Give Mitchell O.K.,” Omaha World-Herald, April 29, 1936, 29.

35. “Mitchell to Hurl 1307th Tilt Wednesday,” Paducah (Kentucky) Sun-Democrat, June 13, 1937, 12.

36. “Mitchell Heads Baseball Sport in Broken Bow,” Custer County Chief (Broken Bow, Nebraska), April 28, 1938, 3; and “Lexington Plays Broken Bow Here Sunday, in League Season Opener,” Custer County Chief, May 4, 1939, 3.

37. “Spit Ball Veteran Piloting Meridian,” Anniston (Alabama) Star, February 16, 1940, 10.

38. Stuart X. Stephenson, “Southeastern Prexy Predicts Close Race in Loop,” Montgomery Advertiser, April 25, 1940, 15.

39. “Spit Ball Veteran Piloting Meridian.”

40. The name Mitchell soon began cropping up in box scores and word spread around the league that the Meridian Bears’ 49-year-old manager was chasing fly balls in the outfield. In fact, the Mitchell in the outfield was 25-year-old Joe Bob Mitchell, a former multi-sport star at Auburn University. (Bill Wise, “Wise and Otherwise,” Selma Times-Journal, May 12, 1940, 6. “Four Letters?” Dothan (Alabama) Eagle, May 1, 1936, 8.)

41. “Rams Outlast Scrappers in 11-Inning Game,” Anniston Star, May 10, 1940, 10.

42. “Meridian Manager Released, Jackson Bows to Gadsden,” Sun Herald (Biloxi, Mississippi), May 17, 1940, 6.

43. “Clarence Mitchell’s Son Lasts One Game,” Miami (Oklahoma) News-Record, August 13, 1942, 4.

44. “Snipe” Conley gained his nickname when, during spring training, some practical jokers dropped him several miles from camp overnight with a bag and a lamp in an effort to catch a small, elusive (and fictitious) woodland creature. (C. Starr Matthews, “When Mack Made Boot,” Baltimore Sun, August 15, 1914, 8).

45. “Manager Essler Begins to Weed Out Team Candidates,” Reading (Pennsylvania) Times, May 9, 1913, 8.

46. “Bloomer Girls Keep City Leaguers Busy to Win,” Reading Times, June 7, 1913, 10.

47. Debra A. Shattuck, Bloomer Girls: Women Baseball Pioneers (University of Illinois Press, 2017), 168.

48. C. Starr Matthews, “When Mack Made Boot,” Baltimore Sun, August 15, 1914, 8.

49. Tom Swope, “Reds Land Four Promising Pitchers Via Draft Route,” Cincinnati Post, September 21, 1917, 8.

50. “Conley Back to Dallas,” Cincinnati Post, May 16, 1918, 11.

51. Sam Kindrick, “Boom That Made Texon Leaves it Dying in Sun,” San Angelo (Texas) Standard-Times, July 10, 1958, 11.

52. Wayne K. Otto, “Darkness Stops Big Scoreless Pitchers’ Battle,” Galveston Daily News, May 12, 1919, 4.

53. Bob Pigue, “Bars Up Against Spitball Hurlers,” News Scimitar (Memphis, Tennessee), December 17, 1919, 18.

54. “Doak Roberts Would Be Fair,” The Sporting News, January 13, 1921, 3.

55. Bill O’Neal, The Texas League, 1888–1987: A Century of Baseball (Austin, Texas: Eakin Press, 1987), 60.

56. Billy Bee, “Second Twin Bill Threatens to Cause Break,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, August 6, 1923, 10.

57. “Spitball Expert Snipe Conley Back in Dallas as Oldest Rookie,” Big Spring (Texas) Daily Herald, June 11, 1941, 6.

58. “Limit on Spitballers Will Not Work Hardship in League,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, October 29, 1926, 16.

59. “Devolution,” The Sporting News, July 23, 1925, 4.

60. “When a Game Isn’t a Game,” The Sporting News, November 12, 1925, 4.

61. “Rules Are Standard,” The Sporting News, December 4, 1924, 4.

62. O’Neal, The Texas League, 47.

63. “Hattiesburg Wins First Half Honors in Cotton States Loop,” Clarion-Ledger (Jackson, Mississippi), June 23, 1928, 8.

64. “Jackson Club Gets Biggest Shake-Up in its Entire History,” Clarion-Ledger, July 3, 1928, 10.

65. “Texon Oilers Slated to Be Strong Again,” San Angelo Standard-Times, March 17, 1929, 16.

66. “Spitball Expert Snipe Conley Back in Dallas as Oldest Rookie.”

67. “Snipe Conley, 47, Returning as Mound ‘Rookie’ for Dallas,” The Sporting News, June 19, 1941, 6.

68. Harold V. Ratliff, “It Was Tough at Finish Bu Old Sniper Made It,” Austin American-Statesman, June 26, 1941, 15.

69. Spink, “Three and One,” The Sporting News, August 7, 1941, 4.

70. Faber and Faber, 5 and 11.

71. “Cuban Pitcher Starts Well,” News Scimitar, July 20, 1920, 13.

72. Floyd Aten Jr., “Introducing the Governors,” Tyler (Texas) Courier-Times, June 3, 1934, 10.

73. Wade Ison, “’Bama Pitts Hits Four; Spins Split,” Charlotte (North Carolina) News, July 1, 1937, 17.

74. Swope, “Contract Signed by Benton,” Cincinnati Post, March 18, 1933, 12.

75. Ratliff, “Snipe Conley Having Trouble in Comeback But He Doesn’t Lose in Second Time Out,” Corpus Christi Times, July 28, 1941, 8.

76. “The Box Score,” Shreveport Times, July 2, 1941, 18; and July 6, 1941, 19.

77. Joe R. Carter, “Raspberries and Cream,” Shreveport Times, July 6, 1941, 19.

78. “Spitball Expert Snipe Conley Back in Dallas as Oldest Rookie.”

79. Spink, “Three and One,” 4.

80. Carter, “Spitball Hurlers Meet Today,” Shreveport Times, July 27, 1941, 19.

81. “Rebs Tee Off on Tuero in First Inning,” Shreveport Times, July 28, 1941, 11.

82. Flem R. Hall, “The Sport Tide,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 31, 1941, 20.

83. “Oscar Tuero to Take Mound for Marshall Club,” Shreveport Times, August 30, 1941, 15.

84. Bill Van Fleet, “Hunter’s Catching for Louisiana ‘9,’” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 25, 1958, 13.

85. “Solis Sets Down Rangers, 10­–2,” Corpus Christi Caller-Times, June 23, 1958, 13.

When I was browsing old issues of the SABR Review of Books, one article from 1988 caught my attention.1 An article by Peter Bjarkman suggested that academic dissertations have much to offer baseball researchers, and he commented that these works “provide a fruitful scholarly resource.”2 He also noted that dissertations “remain one of the richest resources for scholarly interpretation of baseball, and yet at the same time one of the least explored sources.” This makes sense, as authors of dissertations and theses often dedicate years to study an issue in depth, but the final product is typically only seen by a few readers, even though many are available online or archived in libraries.

In his annotated bibliography, Bjarkman highlighted 19 doctoral student projects from 1939 to 1987, specifically on the intersection of baseball and American Literature. I began to wonder, how many more dissertations have been written about baseball since 1987? What topics are covered? Beyond literature, what subjects or fields of study are represented? To date, there has been no comprehensive study or bibliography of research produced by graduate students on the topic of baseball. Those questions, and my curiosity, led to an in-depth investigation.

This paper provides an overview of dissertations and theses completed between 1908 and 2024, along with a link to a separate bibliography document and a data file listing details for over 850 research papers. While the full bibliography is published in the Appendix at the bottom of this page, this article serves as an important preview providing additional information and context. You are invited and encouraged to explore this collection. Both well-seasoned baseball researchers and more casual fans will likely discover something to help them think about and understand the game in a new way.

THE SEARCH FOR BASEBALL DISSERTATIONS AND THESES

The search began by examining the major bibliographies on the subject of baseball that provide lists of books, articles, and other publications. A small number of dissertations and theses can be discovered using these research tools, but they are a relatively rare occurrence. The following sources were reviewed closely: The Baseball File: A Comprehensive Bibliography of America’s National Pastime; Baseball and American Culture: A Thematic Bibliography of Over 4,500 works; and Guide to Baseball Literature.3,4,5 By far, the largest work of this type is Myron Smith’s Baseball: A Comprehensive Bibliography, first published in 1986 and later followed up with a second edition consisting of four volumes and over 57,000 entries.6,7 Finally, SABR’s current database of baseball publications The Baseball Index includes more than 275,000 entries.8

Because very few dissertations were located in the sources above, a more precise solution was required to expand the search further. The primary data source used for this project was ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. This database, available at many academic and research libraries, is described as “the world’s most comprehensive curated collection of multi-disciplinary dissertations and theses” and contains over five million works from over 3,000 institutions.9 EBSCO’s Open Dissertations database provided further leads while WorldCat and numerous university library online catalogs helped to verify information such as titles, authors, and dates.10,11

A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS

After carefully reviewing the sources above, 864 student research papers were ultimately selected for inclusion in this analysis and bibliography. These include doctoral dissertations, master’s theses, and a few papers from undergraduate students (such as a senior thesis or honors project). The research papers were produced between 1908 and 2024, primarily in the United States, and have some aspect of baseball as a central or key theme (see Table 1, Table 2, and Figure 1 below). The projects selected do not represent every baseball dissertation or thesis ever written but instead highlight those that could be located and the ones determined to be of most interest to baseball researchers.

While the focus is largely on professional baseball, college baseball is also represented. This analysis and bibliography excludes most studies about high school and youth baseball, as well as projects that mention baseball in passing but are not centered on baseball. Also excluded are the numerous dissertations and theses discussing very specific aspects of baseball-related injuries, physiology, body movements, range of motion, muscles, and similar issues. Researchers interested in these topics are in most cases better served by examining more current literature, such as studies published in academic journals. Many of these studies can be located by searching PubMed, the citation database maintained by the National Library of Medicine.12 In addition, many academic research studies about baseball appearing in scholarly journals cover a variety of other topics like economics, physics, history, and more, but those are beyond the scope of this investigation.

While we know that baseball can be studied and analyzed in countless ways, the data here emphasize this fact even further with hundreds of students choosing to engage in deep research about baseball on their way toward earning an advanced degree. Just over half of the items identified were completed as part of a master’s degree while doctoral dissertations make up most of the remainder, along with a small number of bachelor’s degree projects. It is not surprising to see more master’s theses because the overall number of individuals earning a master’s degree in the United States is much higher than those completing a doctoral degree (Figure 2). If the number of master’s degree earners is so much higher than doctoral students, why don’t we see many more theses about baseball? That is a good question and some possible explanations include that not all master’s students are required to complete and formally submit a thesis, and when these are completed, many remain unpublished or excluded from libraries and other research collections.

Some of the earliest and most interesting student works on baseball came from the International Young Men’s Christian Association Training School in Massachusetts, now known as Springfield College.14 This institution granted degrees primarily in physical education and had students complete a thesis as a graduation requirement. Many of the student papers have been digitized by the college and are available to view online. The oldest student research paper located on the subject of baseball was “A History of College Baseball” by Joseph Johnson in 1908. Other interesting titles from this school include “Smoking and its Effects Upon Base Ball Pitching” by William Lang in 1916.15 A few years later, in 1922, John McCarraher wrote “A Study of Defensive Baseball,” while in the same year William Diemer wrote “A Study of Offensive Baseball.”16,17 This pair of fascinating surveys asked about baseball practices, perspectives, and opinions, and captured responses from names like Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Honus Wagner, Ira Plank, Pat Moran and other prominent players and coaches. Dozens of questions sought to learn more about strategies such as:

• Is it easier to steal third than to steal second?
• Do you consider bunting a very important part of the game?
• Do you have your catcher back up first base on a ground ball with no outs?

These studies by McCarraher and Diemer are definitely worth a look. The links can be found in the notes at the end of the paper.

UNIVERSITIES AND ACADEMIC DISCIPLINES REPRESENTED

The 864 theses and dissertations appearing in the bibliography that accompanies this article represent 295 colleges and universities, with Ohio State University producing the most (18). Other top schools include Clemson University, Arizona State University, and University of Texas at Austin (Table 3).

The scholarly study of baseball includes nearly all academic disciplines as the sport can be studied from many different perspectives; it is a true interdisciplinary subject, and any field of study can find something to investigate. For this analysis, academic departments were grouped into broad categories since schools use variations in this terminology (Table 4). For a number of research papers, especially older projects, the department or subject area could not be determined. Of the ones that could be identified, the greatest number of papers about baseball were completed by students pursuing degrees in physical education, including the related fields of kinesiology and exercise science. History was the second largest discipline represented, and the fields of education, business, and communication also appear quite frequently. 

ACCESSING THE FULL BIBLIOGRAPHY AND DATA FILES

The full bibliography (PDF) listing all 864 dissertations and theses, from 1908–2024, is available below in the Appendix. The 73-page document is sorted by category and includes a table of contents and author index. A link to the full data file (spreadsheet) is also available so researchers may analyze the content and perform custom sorting and searching.

All of the dissertations and theses are also now included in the Baseball Index (baseballindex.org), SABR’s bibliography of baseball literature, which previously only included a few of these works. Use the Advanced Search to filter by document type, then select Dissertation.

Figure 3. Frequency of Dissertations and Theses by Topic

SPECIFIC BASEBALL TOPICS COVERED BY RESEARCHERS

The range of specific topics investigated is quite broad. Each dissertation or thesis was assigned to one of the 25 categories listed in Figure 3. Some research papers cover more than one topic area or could arguably be assigned to a different category, but the topic categories assigned represent a best attempt to choose the one that best describes the dissertations and theses observed.

Below is a brief description of each category and a sample of selected works that stood out to me as interesting, notable, or just fun, to provide a preview and a sample of what you will find in the full bibliography.

The most popular topic chosen by graduate students to study is related to the Business of Baseball. The 93 research projects in this category look at various aspects of the game such as attendance, revenue, salaries, free-agency, contracts, marketing, revenue, the economic impacts of baseball, as well as the role of management, executives, and owners. This category includes works about the impact of jumbotron advertising, dynamic ticket pricing, and promotions in minor league baseball.18,19,20

The next most frequent topic related to specific Cities, Regions, Leagues, or Teams. This category is further broken down by state to help readers quickly find coverage of their favorite team or local area. Here you will find 89 in-depth studies on topics such as the Arkansas State League in the 1930s, the relocation of the Montreal Expos, the economic impact of the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons, and a survey of Sioux Falls Canaries season ticket holders.21,22,23,24

As one might imagine, the History of Baseball is an important and popular area of study. Among the 65 studies are a series of interviews with six baseball historians and a detailed history of the All-Star Game.25,26 This category also includes interesting works such as the 1939 “Historical Dictionary of Baseball Terminology,” and Harold Seymour’s 1956 dissertation that eventually led to his highly regarded and award-winning book, Baseball: The Early Years.27,28,29 At least five other studies in this category, in addition to Seymour’s, went on to be further developed and published as books.

It is also no surprise that research would be conducted on the many Strategies, Techniques, and Skills of the game. The 54 projects here look at questions such as the best method for rounding first base, predicting pitches based on pitch tipping, and a statistical analysis of retaliation pitches.30,31,32 Quite a few students chose to investigate baseball’s intersection with Art, Music, Literature, or Film. Numerous studies focus on how the sport is represented in specific works of fiction or film. One example is “Baseball fiction in children’s periodicals 1880–1950.”33 When it comes to music you can read about how modern players experience stadium music during a game, or a more historical perspective in “From the Hammond Organ to Sweet Caroline.”34,35

Many entries in the Math and Statistics section deal with quantitative analysis and predictions, while the Biological and Medical studies report on aspects of injuries and body movements, including several studies on the importance of vision. As noted earlier, this bibliography includes only a limited selection of titles in this category as this research is constantly evolving and frequently appears in other academic and professional publications. The Media section contains all things related to newspapers, television, radio, and online communication. One project surveyed play-by-play announcers in the 1970s, another analyzed newspaper coverage of the steroid issue, and yet another presents the history and creation of a regional sports network (NESN).36,37,38 Dissertations and theses about player personalities and the unique stressors of baseball, such as the yips (a sudden and unexplained loss of physical skills), are covered in Psychology and Mental Health.

Many questions exist around the materials used to manufacture bats and balls, and their performance. These questions are addressed in the Science/Physics/Equipment section. Studies here also include the movement of pitches, like the curveball or knuckleball, or even the properties and impacts of the dirt and grass on the playing field. The Minor Leagues receive a fair amount of attention with research focused on topics related to business aspects, or a team’s role in the community. One student used his experience as a mascot for a minor league ball team to develop a dissertation when earning a degree in communications.39 For students interested in Ballparks/Stadiums, the work in that category studied construction, financing, and unique aspects or features of stadiums, including historical preservation and economic impacts on surrounding communities.

The Black Baseball/Negro Leagues category examines influential individuals (e.g., Wendell Smith), teams (e.g., Ethiopian Clowns), and representation in the media (e.g., Pittsburgh Courier).40,41,42 This category also covers segregation and integration from a historical context and a variety of angles. Of the 33 projects here, only four were completed before 1980.

As interest in baseball increases around the world, so does the academic research. Studies in the International Baseball category include details about fans and players in places including Canada, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, while those in the section on Hispanic and Latin American Baseball report on issues and players from the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Mexico.

While this overall project excludes many works about little league and high school baseball, the College and Youth Baseball category covers some interesting and important topics such as Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) opportunities in college baseball, the history of the American Legion youth baseball program, the Little League Challenger Division, and more.43,44,45

The role of Women and Baseball is a significant aspect through all eras and continues to interest researchers. The two earliest projects on this topic, one in 1954 and one in 1976, focused on the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League.46,47 No others could be found until five more were completed in the 1990s. Interest continued to grow with another 14 published between 2006 and 2017. These research papers have investigated among other issues, women in leadership in professional baseball, and the experiences of female major league baseball fans.48,49

Some of the most interesting and unexpected research projects appear in the section Creative Works and Original Compositions. These students chose to use baseball as the inspiration for their original novels, screenplays, or even musical works. For example, a 2013 dissertation from the University of Chicago Department of Music used the Astros-Cubs game from May 6, 1998, as the basis for a string quartet composition.50 This is the game in which Kerry Wood recorded 20 strikeouts to tie the major league record for most strikeouts in nine innings.

Topics such as post-retirement life and issues impacting families of baseball players are found in the Families, Personal Life, and Relationships section. Umpires are another key aspect of the game to be studied in detail. Researchers have written about automated strike zones, umpire performance, and umpire personalities. Rule changes over the years and discussions of rules violations, including performance enhancing substances, are covered in Rules/Policies.

The remaining categories contain fewer than ten dissertations or theses each. While these topics are covered less frequently, they are still worthy of consideration and include some interesting coverage about Coaches and Managers and the Hall of Fame. The Memorabilia and Collecting category primarily covers baseball cards, but there is one lengthy study detailing depictions of sports on postage stamps.51 Finally, Fantasy Baseball represents the smallest category with only four projects completed between 1997 and 2021.

HOW TO OBTAIN A COPY OF A DISSERTATION OR THESES FROM THE BIBLIOGRAPHY

When you locate one or more items in the accompanying bibliography that you would like to explore more thoroughly, the full papers may be accessed in several ways.

• Direct Link: In many cases, especially for dissertations and theses published in the most recent decades, a digital copy is available directly from the associated college or university website, often through the institution’s library. Where digital copies are available the link is provided.
• Contact the Originating University/Library: An archival copy is typically held at the library of the institution where a dissertation or thesis was produced. This may be in print or on microfilm. Check the library’s online catalog or contact staff for assistance.
• Your Local Library: Many academic libraries subscribe to the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global database to search and obtain digital copies of many of these documents. Access policies for visitors vary. Contact library staff for details.

Copies of some dissertations and theses may be found at multiple college or university libraries, not just the one where the author completed the degree.

Your local public or academic library may be able to initiate an interlibrary loan request on your behalf to obtain a copy from another library.

Digital or print copies for many titles are available to purchase from ProQuest.

FINAL THOUGHTS

The most enjoyable aspect of this project was seeing the vast range of topics that one can study in relation to baseball. To see so many fans successfully combine their love of the game with their academic and professional pursuits is truly remarkable. Even though many of the dissertations and theses identified are quite old at this point, they still hold value for today’s researchers investigating aspects of the national pastime. Some of the identified dissertation and thesis authors likely went on to pursue careers in or around baseball, while others may have followed a different path. However, there is a strong probability their passion for baseball remains with many. Some went on to develop their academic work into books or articles, and these cases are noted in the bibliography. Seven individuals completed both a master’s thesis and a doctoral dissertation about baseball.

Future researchers and graduate students may find the projects in this bibliography helpful when considering a baseball related topic for their own project. What has been covered before? Where are the gaps waiting to be filled? The reference lists found in these dissertations and theses are also a valuable tool for future researchers, saving significant time and leading to sources that may otherwise be missed.

Because baseball dissertations and theses remain some of the least explored resources, this collection provides a rich resource to browse and discover something new in your specific area(s) of interest, or perhaps to even develop a new area of interest. It is this author’s hope that going forward these important works become more visible and accessible to all baseball fans and researchers.

TOM REINSFELDER holds the title of Distinguished Librarian at Penn State University where he enjoys assisting researchers and learning something new every day. He joined SABR in 2022 and has made contributions as an editor and fact checker for the BioProject and as a peer reviewer for Baseball Research Journal. Some personal baseball highlights include attending the last game at Memorial Stadium in Baltimore and traveling to the Midnight Sun Game in Fairbanks Alaska with his father and son.

Appendix

• Click here to download the full bibliography (PDF), which lists all 864 dissertations and theses from 1908–2024. The 73-page document is sorted by category and includes a table of contents and author index.
• Click here to download the full data file (Excel), which is made available here so researchers may analyze the content and perform custom sorting and searching.

Acknowledgments

The author received helpful assistance from Jeffrey L. Monseau, College Archivist, and Mackenzie Dunn, Assistant Director for Research and Access at the Springfield College library.

Notes

1.  SABR Review of Books, https://sabr.org/journals/sabr-review-of-books/.

2.  Peter C. Bjarkman, “Bats, Balls, and Gowns: Academic Dissertations on Baseball Literature, Culture and History,” SABR Review of Books 3 (1988): 89–104 https://sabr.org/journals/sabr-review-of-books/. https://sabr.org/journal/article/dissertations-on-the-subject-of-baseball.

3. Marion Fournier, The Baseball File: A Comprehensive Bibliography of America’s National Pastime (Sport Information Resource Centre, 1992).

4. Donald E. Walker and B. Lee Cooper, Baseball and American Culture: A Thematic Bibliography of Over 4,500 Works (McFarland, 1995).

5. Anton Grobani, Guide to Baseball Literature (Gale, 1975).

6. Myron J. Smith Jr, Baseball: A Comprehensive Bibliography (McFarland, 1986). Supplement 1 published in 1993. Supplement 2 published in 1998.

7. Myron J. Smith Jr, The Baseball Bibliography, 2nd ed. (McFarland, 2006).

8. “The Baseball Index,” Society for American Baseball Research, https://baseballindex.org.

9. “ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global,” Proquest, https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/pqdtglobal.

10. “EBSCO Open Dissertations,” https://www.ebsco.com/products/research-databases/ebsco-open-dissertations.

11. “What is WorldCat.org?” OCLC, https://search.worldcat.org/about.

12. “PubMed” National Library of Medicine, http://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

13. “Degrees Conferred by Postsecondary Institutions, By Level of Degree and Sex of Student: Selected Academic Years, 1869–70 Through 2031–32” Digest of Education Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics, 2023, Table 318.10, https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d23/tables/dt23_318.10.asp.

14. From 1912-–54 the school was named “International Young Men’s Christian Association College” https://library.springfield.edu/college-history/timeline-of-college-history.

15. William A. Lang, “Smoking and Its Effects Upon Base Ball Pitching” (Springfield College, 1916), https://cdm16122.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16122coll1/id/282426.

16. John D. McCarraher, “A Study of Defensive Baseball” (Springfield College, 1922), https://cdm16122.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16122coll1/id/285732.

17. William S. Diemer, “A Study of Offensive Baseball” (Springfield College, 1922), https://cdm16122.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p16122coll1/id/306814.

18. Trevor Kraus, “The Effect of Jumbotron Advertising on the Experience of Attending Major League Baseball Games” (master’s thes., University of Missouri–Columbia, 2014), https://hdl.handle.net/10355/45673.

19. Jian-Da Zhu, “Essays on Dynamic Ticket Pricing: Evidence from Major League Baseball Tickets” (PhD diss., Texas A&M University, 2014), https://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/153408.

20. Julie D. Lanzillo, “The Attitudes of Minor League Baseball Fans and Team Administrators Toward the Use of Promotions” (PhD diss., Wilmington University, 2010).

21. Jeffrey John Aulgur, “Depression Era Minor League Baseball: The Arkansas State League, 1934–1935” (master’s thes., University of Arkansas, 1991).

22. Peter F. Brandt, “Franchise Relocation in Professional Sports: The Case of the Montreal Expos” (master’s thes., University of New Orleans, 1999).

23. James J. Keeler, “The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Red Barons: A Case Study of Regional Community and Economic Development in Northeastern Pennsylvania” (PhD diss., University of Southern California, 1997). https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c17-322604.

24. Scott F. Gales, “A Survey Investigation Involving the Season Ticket Holders of the Sioux Falls Canaries Baseball Club” (master’s thes., Minnesota State University, Mankato, 1997).

25. Wade Berstler, “Historians of 19th Century Baseball: Exploring Their Experiences Regarding Their Avocation” (PhD diss., Florida Atlantic University, 2016), https://fau.digital.flvc.org/islandora/object/fau%3A33738.

26. Herbert Cohen, “An Historical Study of the Baseball All-Star Game” (master’s thes., University of Southern California, 1957), https://impa.usc.edu/archive/An-historical-study-of-the-baseball-all-star-game–2A3BF16A38W3.html

27. Edward J. Nichols, “An Historical Dictionary of Baseball Terminology” (PhD diss., Penn State University, 1939).

28. Harold E. Seymour, “The Rise of Major League Baseball to 1891” (PhD diss., Cornell University, 1956).

29. John Thorn, “Henry Chadwick Award: Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour Mills,” SABR Baseball Research Journal 39, no. 2 (2010), https://sabr.org/journal/article/henry-chadwick-award-harold-seymour-and-dorothy-seymour-mills

30. Wayne S. Kaufman, “Comparison of Two Methods of Rounding First Base in Baseball” (master’s thes., Ohio State University, 1961).

31. Brian Ishii, “Using Pitch Tipping for Baseball Pitch Prediction” (master’s thes., California Polytechnic State University, 2021), https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/theses/2311

32. Peter Jurewicz, “Chin Music: A Statistical Analysis of Retaliation Pitches in Major League Baseball” (master’s thes., Clemson University, 2013), https://open.clemson.edu/all_theses/1793.

33. Debraren A. Dagavarian, “A Descriptive Analysis of Baseball Fiction in Children’s Periodicals, 1880–1950” (PhD diss., Rutger’s University, 1986).

34. Seth Swary, “Yo, I Like Your Walk-Up Song: Music Integration in Professional Baseball Gamedays” (PhD diss., West Virginia University, 2020), https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/etd/7677.

35. Matthew W. Mihalka, “From the Hammond Organ to ‘Sweet Caroline’: The Historical Evolution of Baseball’s Sonic Environment” (PhD diss., University of Minnesota, 2012).

36. Michael R. Emrick, “Major League Baseball principal Play-By-Play Announcers: Their Occupation, Background, and Personal Life” (PhD diss., Bowling Green State University, 1976), http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=bgsu1566302070900713.

37. Daniel G. Murphy, “Newspaper Coverage of Steroid Scandal: Steroids Pump Up Baseball’s Status Quo” (master’s thes., Fordham University, 2009).

38. Tanya L. Lovejoy, “Was anyone out there watching last night?”: The creation and early history of New England Sports Network, 1980–1989” (PhD diss., Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 2012), https://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/dissertations/546.

39. Jeffrey L. Birdsell, “Dogging It At Work: Developing and Performing Organizational Routines as a Minor League Baseball Mascot” (PhD diss., University of Texas at Austin, 2015), http://hdl.handle.net/2152/30522.

40. Hope Roth, “Wendell Smith and the integration of Major League Baseball” (master’s thes., Tufts University, 2013).

41. John Dominic T.M. Migliaccio, “All the world loves a clown: The humble beginnings, glorious peak, and slow death of the Ethiopian Clowns” (master’s thes., California State University–Fresno, 2020).

42. John Slights, “The romanticization of the integration of Major League Baseball and the decline of organized black professional baseball through the lens of the Pittsburgh Courier, 1945–1950” (master’s thes., University of Georgia, 2019).

43. Matthew Magre, “The Implications of NIL Collectives on College Baseball” (undergraduate thes., University of Arkansas, 2024), https://scholarworks.uark.edu/econuht/55.

44. Kent M. Krause, “From Americanism to Athleticism: A History of the American Legion Junior Baseball Program” (PhD diss., University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 1998).

45. Lupe D. Casteneda, “Perceived Outcomes of Participation in Challenger Division Baseball” (master’s thes., Texas Woman’s University, 1997).

46. Maria Sexton, “Implications of the All-American Girl Baseball League for physical educators in the guidance of highly-skilled girls” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1954).

47. Fidler, Merrie, “The development and decline of the All-American Girls Baseball League, 1943–1954” (master’s thes., University of Massachusetts, Amherst).

48. Maki Itoh, “Role Models, Women’s Leadership and Careers of Women in the Management of Professional Baseball” (PhD diss., University of Louisville, 2014), https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd/663.

49. Kelly L. Balfour, “Life in the Stands: The Experiences of Female Major League Baseball Fans” (PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2012), https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1264.

50. Alexander James Genik-Sas-Berezowsky, “May 6th, 1998, for String Quartet” (PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2013), https://catalog.lib.uchicago.edu/vufind/Record/9370384. Audio recording available at https://soundcloud.com/alex-j-berezowsky/may-6th-1998.

51. Myrtis E. Herndon, “The Sporting Spirit: Perceptions in Philatelic Art Iconography and Sports Philately, 1896–1974” (PhD diss., Ohio State University, 1991).

In the early eras of baseball, the most important pitching statistic was wins, and the best pitchers were considered those who won the most. However, much of what determines the winning pitcher, most notably run support, is out of that pitcher’s control. Over time, an improved understanding of pitching has led to increasingly accurate measures of pitcher performance and skill.

The earliest improvements were focused on runs allowed, and then ERA so that the pitcher was not punished by fielding errors. Approximately 25 years ago, it was discovered that much of what had been attributed to pitching was really fielding. This led to new methods such as defense-independent [sic] pitching statistics (DIPS) and fielding independent pitching (FIP), evaluating pitchers based on only strikeouts, walks, and home runs, the outcomes under their direct control. Thus, not only the luck of run support, but now fielding and BABIP luck were removed as not being predictive.

Even these outcomes, however, continue to have a luck component. Although home run rate is a significant component of FIP, there is considerable luck involved in giving up a home run. Most bad pitches, even to excellent hitters, do not result in home runs. And sometimes a hitter manages to hit a home run on an excellent pitch. Presumably this sort of hitter luck is not predictive of future pitcher outcomes.

For the past decade, MLB has measured and released pitch trajectories and related information through its Statcast database. Based on these data, methods have been developed to try to remove the luck of the hitter in a manner similar to the way that the fielding luck was removed. Instead of looking at whether a given pitch was actually hit for a home run, instead one can look at the pitch trajectory and ask how often a similar pitch would be hit for a home run. That is, if one assumes that the throwing a pitch on a specific trajectory is a repeatable skill (an assertion supported strongly by Statcast tracking), then pitchers can be evaluated on whether the set of pitches they throw should typically lead to good outcomes. Several versions of this pitch scoring have been developed in the past few years, such as Pitching+.1

In this work, a similar set of techniques is used as a starting point to consider the value and skill of hitters. In Section 2, a pitch score is described which estimates the result that would be obtained by an average MLB hitter against that particular pitch in a manner similar to previous work. In Section 3, a hitter score is then defined as the difference between actual hitter outcomes (using an expected wOBA based on trajectory for balls in play to minimize the effects of defensive luck) and expected outcomes for an average hitter facing the same set of pitches. Based on these hitter scores, in Section 4, the origin of the previously documented effect that pitchers are less effective during their time through the order is shown. An additional result in Section 5 is evidence that hitters guess, so that pitch calling and sequencing represents a potentially important catcher skill. Thus, one can also define a catcher score, where a good catcher produces weaker hitter outcomes than would be expected given the pitch trajectory and hitter skill. In Section 6, it is shown that catcher fielding is several times more important than previously measured, likely primarily due to hitter adjustments to the expanded strike zones produced by catchers with good framing ability. The implications of these results are discussed in Section 7.

PITCH SCORES IN MLB

The pitch scores used here, and other metrics derived from them, were developed independently using a procedure similar to those described in previous metrics such as Pitching+. The pitch score model is derived from over 3.5 million pitches in MLB Statcast from 2019 to 2024.

First, each pitch is given a pitch score based on its true outcome, expressed as the difference in the run expectancy pre-pitch and post-pitch. In order to reduce the effect of defense luck, any ball in play is given a score based on the Statcast expected wOBA (weighted on-base average) derived from a model trained on launch angle, velocity, and direction rather than the true wOBA. For a pitch not put into play, the value of a given count is based on the league average wOBA across all place appearances going through that count. For example, using the table from, if a 1–1 pitch (pre-pitch expected wOBA 0.313) is taken for a ball, the new expected wOBA is 0.059 higher, so the pitch score would be -0.046 runs for a wOBA value of 1.27.2 If the ball is put into play on a trajectory with a Statcast expected wOBA of 0.201, then the pitch result wOBA is 0.112 lower than expected pre-pitch, so the pitch score would be +0.088 runs. The actual number of outs and set of baserunners was found to have negligible impact on the relationship between pitch trajectory and pitch scores, so they are ignored here.

Using XGBoost, a decision-tree based regressor machine learning tool, over 3.5 million pitches in MLB Statcast from 2019 to 2024 were divided into a training set and a testing set to create a pitch score predictor.3 The model predicts a pitch score from the following Statcast data: count (balls, strikes); location (plate_x and a rescaled zone_z relative to the hitter’s strike zone height); pitcher and hitter handedness; reported pitch type; and trajectory information (pitch velocity, spin rate, spin axis and horizontal and vertical breaks). As with Pitching+, these are divided into separate stuff and location scores, then combined to produce a total pitch score.

RELEASE POINTS AND OVERFITTING

The most significant difference in methodology between this and previous metrics is that release point information is not explicitly used. The metric does have limited release point information, since it can in principle be derived from the final pitch location and the trajectory, but the exact release point is somewhat obscured.

It is established that including the release point can reduce the variance between model and outcome. That is, throwing an identical pitch from a different release point will truly produce a different expected outcome. For that matter, release points for individual pitches by the same pitcher should not be considered independently, since pitch “tunneling” has been shown to improve pitcher outcomes.4

In MLB data, there are few enough pitchers that in many cases release points essentially specify the pitcher. That is, most sliders from Jacob deGrom’s release point in 2019 were in fact thrown by deGrom, one of the most effective pitchers in 2019. Thus, a model which, based on the training sample, simply assigns any slider from that release point a high pitch score would do well on the 2019 test sample. However, if an ineffective pitcher adjusted their release point to match deGrom’s while making no other changes, they would still be ineffective and the model would make poor predictions. Thus, for this work it was decided to omit release point information to avoid overtraining. With a larger pool of pitchers to draw from with the same data and calibration quality, such as pitchers from minor league and international play, including release point would likely improve the model for the same reason that it is important in Stuff+.

OVERVIEW

The primary results are similar to those found with previous models, including those with a release point component. For example, the most effective pitches are, as might be expected, those near the edges of the strike zone (Figure 1A). This is true even though when the ball is put in play, hitters are successful against pitches along a broad stripe (Figure 1B) that includes not just the center of the strike zone, but two corners as well. This stripe runs at approximately a fixed distance from the hitter’s shoulders, suggesting that it corresponds to locations that would line up with the barrel of the bat along a natural swing path.

Figure 1A. Average pitch score as a function of location for all pitches thrown to RHB in 2024, from the catcher’s point of view and scaled to the height of the strike zone. Combining all pitches thrown vs. RHB, pitch scores are the highest on the edges of the strike zone, as might be expected.

Figure 1B. Average expected wOBA for pitches producing contact. Hitters produce strong results when putting the ball in play not just in the middle of zone, but along a stripe at approximately fixed distance from the batter’s shoulders. As might be expected, higher pitch scores are associated with the locations more likely to produce swings while avoiding high-wOBA contact.

However, for the best and worst pitchers, the stuff score is typically more important than location. Thus, a pitcher with strong stuff can have positive pitch scores for nearly all locations (Figure 2). These conclusions are similar to previous results using comparable techniques. The remaining sections will use these pitch scores to produce novel results by considering the effects of hitters and catchers.

Figure 2. Overall average pitch score for Devin Williams in 2023 as a function of location. Even pitches in the center of the strike zone, with significantly negative location scores, produced positive pitch scores due to the excellent stuff score produced by a combination of velocity and movement.

HITTER SCORES

The pitch scores defined in the previous section measure the typical value of a pitch against an average major league hitter. Thus, a hitter score can then be calculated as the difference between that hitter’s outcome and the ones that would be expected given the actual pitches they faced. This metric will account for the luck of facing particularly good or poor pitches over the course of the season.

As with pitch scores, for a pitch taken by the hitter, the outcome used is the difference between expected wOBA before and after that pitch, expressed in runs. The hitter score is then the difference between that change and the pitch score, defined so that a positive number corresponds to more expected runs. To further remove luck from the results, when a ball is put in play, the Statcast expected wOBA based on trajectory is used rather than the actual wOBA resulting from the ball in play, since the latter depends upon fielding.

As the sabermetric understanding of pitcher evaluation has improved, the profile of pitchers considered most effective has shifted, since those who lead in traditional metrics such as wins or ERA are often not those who rank highest by more advanced metrics such as FIP, which can again be different from those with the highest pitch scores due to hitter luck. However, the hitters with the highest hitter scores are far more recognizable (Table 1), suggesting that over the course of a full season, the quality of pitches faced does not vary significantly across major league baseball and the trajectory-based expected wOBA is a good predictor of actual wOBA.

A closer examination of hitter scores reveals the different ways that hitters create value. For example, Shohei Ohtani’s value in 2024 predominantly came from exceptional results throughout the center of the strike zone (Figure 3). These are the locations that typically lead to the best contact, so a high hitter score here is typical of a power hitter.

Figure 3. Average hitter score as a function of location for Shohei Ohtani in 2024. Most of Ohtani’s value came from exceptional results throughout the center of the strike zone, even though he slightly underperformed the average major league hitter on pitches near the edges of the zone. This is a typical profile for a power hitter, since these are the location that typically lead to the best contact.

Exceptional plate discipline, on the other hand, instead creates value near the edges of the strike zone. Most of Lars Nootbaar’s value in 2024 came from those pitches (Figure 4A), and he underperformed the average MLB hitter on pitches closer to the center of the zone. Pitchers and catchers were likely aware of these tendencies when facing Nootbaar, since he primarily saw pitches in the locations he was weakest relative to MLB hitters (Figure 4B).

Figure 4A. Average hitter score as a function of location for Lars Nootbaar in 2024. Most of Nootbaar’s value came from exceptional results around the edges of the strike zone. This is a typical profile for hitters described as having an exceptional eye.

Figure 4B. The most common locations for pitches thrown to Nootbaar that year were in the locations he most underperformed when compared with major league hitters. This likely indicates that pitchers had a gameplan informed by Nootbaar’s profile, either through techniques like those described here or through more traditional advanced scouting.

In summary, the hitter score provides a solid and intuitive summary of hitter skill that generally reaffirms what existing metrics have already found. It aligns well with established rankings of the best hitters, and a breakdown by pitch type or location helps to build a profile of which skills an individual hitter is using to produce value. However, this likely reflects information teams already exploit when calling pitches. Still, the consistency between hitter score and real-world behavior helps to confirm that it can be a useful measure of hitter skill.

This hitter score can now be applied to investigate other phenomena. It is well established that there is a progressive drop-off in a pitcher’s effectiveness as he faces the batting order multiple times. Teams have been willing to adjust strategy to avoid this effect, notably including the Rays pulling Blake Snell after just 73 highly effective pitches in Game 6 of the 2020 World Series. Although this “times through the order” (TTO) effect can be easily measured, the origins have been heavily debated.5

Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin (2007) demonstrated the effect, finding that hitters gain 8–9 points of wOBA in each successive plate appearance (PA).6 They attributed this primarily to hitter learning rather than to pitcher fatigue. Lichtman (2013) reached a similar conclusion in a more detailed analysis.7 Under this theory, there should be a sharp difference between results against the 9th or 18th hitter faced and the 10th or 19th, who are seeing that pitcher an additional time. Indeed, such a discontinuity is found in observed results.

However, nearly all appearances in which a single pitcher goes through the order several times are by starting pitchers, so that the 10th and 19th appearances are also a return to the top of the lineup. These are the best hitters, which is why the first inning (the only inning in which the top of the order is guaranteed to bat) produces more runs than later innings.8 A more sophisticated statistical approach instead argues that this difference in hitter quality and other confounding variables are responsible for the apparent discontinuity when going through the order an additional time.9 Instead, pitchers exhibit a continuous decline throughout the course of a game, indicating that it is pitcher fatigue rather than hitter learning which is responsible.

With the pitch score and hitter score metrics, it is now possible to measure both effects independently. Pitcher fatigue results in lower pitch scores over the course of an outing. There is a survivor bias for long outings, since typically only effective pitchers are allowed to face, e.g., 25 hitters, although this is somewhat mitigated because managers determine when to bring in a reliever by outcome and game situation rather than pitch score. Further, the first few pitches thrown by a starter are substantially worse than the remainder of their pitches, indicating a brief adjustment period. However, when restricting the study to outings of at least 90 pitches thrown, a small but clear decline in pitch score over the remainder of an outing is observed (Figure 5).

Figure 5. (top) Average pitch (blue) and hitter (red) scores for 2024 major league hitters as a function of the number of hitters faced by that pitcher during that appearance; and (bottom) the same data grouped by position within the lineup. Pitch scores exhibit a small decline over the course of an outing following a brief initial adjustment period. However, the far larger effect comes from hitters, with the top of the order producing higher hitter scores than the bottom. The top of the order also shows a strong TTO effect, indicating that hitter learning is more important than pitcher fatigue. However, the bottom of the order shows minimal change in hitter scores, indicating that those hitters do not make the same sort of successful in-game adjustments.

However, the hitter effects are both more significant and more complex. During the first time through the lineup, hitter scores are very slightly negative at the beginning of an outing, then drop for the lower half of the lineup (Figure 5). By the second time through the order, the top of the lineup now produces hitter scores approximately 0.5 runs per 100 pitches better than the first time. However, the bottom of the lineup, which had the weakest hitter scores in the first PA, does not improve. The same pattern is repeated the third time through the order, with the top of the lineup performing even better than during their second PA, but the bottom of the lineup producing similar hitter scores in all three PA.

The natural conclusion is that although pitcher fatigue does produce a gradual and measurable decline in pitch quality, it is the hitters, and specifically the best hitters, that drive the majority of the observed effect. Familiarity with a pitcher produces a substantial advantage over the course of a game, but only for those hitters skilled enough to be capable of making the right adjustments. Although the bottom of the lineup shows little to no hitter improvement, pitcher fatigue does produce a smaller improvement from one PA to the next based on the decline in pitch quality.

This complex behavior, in which pitchers tire continuously but only some hitters improve, is likely responsible for the conflicting results of previous studies trying to determine whether pitchers or hitters drive the TTO effect. A further confounding factor is the difference in lineup qualities; most of the hitters in a very strong lineup might be good enough to make in-game adjustments, while in a weak lineup there might be only a couple such hitters. Further, although the best hitters are generally placed near the top of the order, managerial preferences, roster constraints, and occasional misjudgments about player quality mean this is not always the case, further obscuring the effect in previous studies.

PITCH SEQUENCING AND HITTER GUESSING

Another application of the idea of hitter scores comes from thinking about how pitches are selected. Most pitchers throw between two and five different pitches over the course of an outing, and it has long been thought that a clever catcher can improve their pitcher’s performance by calling for pitches in the right location and in the right order. The more that a hitter is surprised, the worse their performance should be.

If true, this is antithetical to the idea that one can simply assign every pitch a score. After all, it would mean that no pitch can be properly evaluated in isolation. The same pitch in a different context should be projected to have different effectiveness.

On the other hand, if part of the TTO effect is that hitters learn from the previous pitches thrown, then hitters should also become more effective over the course of a single at-bat. If a pitch is thrown several times in a row, the hitter score should continue to increase each time they see that pitch.

To test this hypothesis, hitter scores are considered for several situations (see Table 2):

• The first pitch of a plate appearance (365,279 pitches in 2023–24 for an average hitter score of -0.153/100 pitches)
• A non-first pitch which occurs for the first time in that plate appearance (428,972 pitches for an average score of -0.070/100)
• A non-first pitch which has been thrown earlier in the same plate appearance (631,389 pitches for an average score of 0.099/100)

As expected, hitters do appear to learn, and subsequent instances of the pitch result in a higher pitch score. However, additional segmentation reveals a more complex behavior:

• A non-first pitch which is identical to the previous pitch (389,915 pitches for an average hitter score of -0.140/100)
• A non-first pitch that occurred previously but is different than the previous pitch (241,474 pitches for an average hitter score of 0.485/100)

Surprisingly, the results show the opposite of what we might expect from the hypothesis that hitters learn. Throwing the same pitch type back to back would seemingly provide the best learning environment, because the hitter has just seen the exact same pitch from the same pitcher. However, this actually results in a lower pitch score, while showing a new pitch is less effective than a repeated pitch!

It seems clear that hitters do indeed learn, because they have a higher hitter score when seeing the same pitch multiple times with a gap in between. Thus, perhaps the most likely explanation is that hitters include an element of guessing in their approach. This idea of batter learning was first supported by David W. Smith in his article in the SABR Baseball Research Journal in 2005.10 Coaching typically emphasizes that hitters should be adjusting rather than guessing, and a “guess hitter” is a description typically seen as pejorative. However, the evidence seems to indicate that within an at-bat, the best hitters in the world do include an element of guessing when facing the best pitchers in the world. This is supported by Ted Williams, perhaps the greatest hitter in the history of baseball, who endorsed guessing in his book.11

Further, on average hitters appear not to guess often enough that they will see the same pitch twice in a row. Despite learning from having seen the exact same pitch previously, hitter scores are lowest when a pitch is immediately repeated. Thus, there would seem to be significant room for hitter improvement with a better approach to guessing pitches. If the 195k consecutively repeated pitches produce the same hitter scores as a different pitch (0.130/100), this would be worth approximately 1.8 wins/team/season. If they produce the same pitch score as when that same pitch is seen later in the at-bat with a gap in between, a time when hitters are likely guessing correctly more often than average, it would be worth around 4.1 wins/team/season. The extreme version of successful guessing would be a pitcher who is tipping their pitches, which would be worth enough to the hitter that even the best pitcher in baseball would struggle to survive at the major league level while tipping pitches.

PITCHER LEARNING

The pitch quality also changes between these different situations. On the first pitch of a plate appearance, the average pitch score is -0.342/100. However, both pitchers and hitters perform poorly on the first pitch of a PA. A possible explanation is that hitters are often conditioned to take a strike as part of their approach, producing weak hitter scores for otherwise hittable pitches. In return, pitchers adjust by being more willing to throw the ball towards the center of the zone, due to the increased odds of a hitter not swinging.

When the same pitch is immediately repeated, the average pitch score increases to 0.254/100, and when repeated with a gap, it becomes 0.356/100. Similarly, the first time a new pitch is thrown in the PA, the average pitch score is -0.342/100, identical to the first pitch of the PA. Thus, pitchers also appear to adjust over the course of throwing to the same hitter. However, a confounding effect is that most pitchers have a range of pitch quality in their arsenal, and are more likely to throw their best pitches multiple times in a PA rather than their worst.

FINDING THE FULL VALUE OF CATCHER FRAMING

In the previous section, it was shown based on changes in hitter scores in various scenarios within a plate appearance that hitters appear to guess. A consequence is that even as baseball moves towards an automated strike zone and framing becomes less useful, there might still be considerable value to a strong defensive catcher (or bench coach). If hitters indeed guess, then pitch calling can be quite valuable.

This can be tested by considering the impact of catchers on the hitter score of the pitches they receive. If a catcher is successful at surprising a hitter, the hitter score should be lower than they would typically achieve on a pitch with a similar trajectory. On the other hand, if the hitter guesses correctly, they should have a higher hitter score than on similar pitches. So, one can define a catcher score as the difference between the average hitter score and the actual hitter score on the pitches they receive.

MLB’s Statcast and Baseball Savant found that catcher framing value ranged from +16 to -10 runs in 2024. However, catcher scores overall ranged from +61 to -50 runs, over four times larger of a spread (Table 3). If correct, this means that the difference between the best and worst catchers was over 11 wins in 2024. Including both catchers on a roster produces an even larger spread. So, these catcher scores indicate that the best catchers are far more valuable than had been previously believed.

A possible confounding variable is that this larger spread could be park-induced. If a park has a particularly poor hitter backdrop, all hitter scores in that park might be lower than average, leading to a higher catcher score. However, the same trend exists when only considering pitches caught on the road (Table 3), so it appears that catchers indeed influence hitter scores to approximately this degree.

SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL CATCHER VALUE

Two potential explanations for this increased catcher value appear most probable. The first is that pitch calling is responsible. Since it is shown above that even major league hitters guess, it stands to reason that surprising a hitter should lead to a lower pitch score. If successfully surprising hitters is worth up to 40 runs/team/year, it is possible that the difference between the best and worst pitch callers could be several times as large.

The other possibility is that this comes from hitter adjustments. As a pitch moves away from the center of the strike zone, hitter outcomes decline (Fig. 1b). Thus, hitters try to avoid ‘expanding the zone’ and swinging at pitches that would otherwise be balls. However, in most situations (and particularly deeper in the count), swinging at a pitch that would otherwise be called a strike is a better outcome than taking the pitch. So, if a catcher with good framing skills can consistently establish that a pitch an inch outside the rulebook strike zone will be called a strike, hitters will adapt by swinging at those pitches at a higher rate than they otherwise would. The best framing catchers indeed do induce more swings, particularly outside of the strike zone, than the worst framing catchers (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Swing fraction as a function of location for hitter against (left) all catchers; (right) ratio of swings induced catchers with the best framing ability compared with catchers with the worst framing ability in 2024. Hitters were more likely to swing at pitches outside of the rulebook strike zone against catchers who had the ability to frame those more often into strikes.

Thus, in addition to the value of the strikes directly added via framing, those same pitches additionally produce better hitter outcomes on balls swung at, both when put into play and when missed. Since these pitches are not called by the umpire, they are not included in the direct framing value, but they will be included in the pitch score.

RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS TO CATCHER VALUE

These two effects can potentially be separated by location. The extra swings induced by good framing catchers occur predominantly outside of the rulebook zone, as do the additional called strikes by definition. Thus, catcher score on pitches thrown inside the rulebook zone can instead be attributed to pitch calling. The resulting framing runs for each catcher correlate strongly between home and road results, as would be expected for framing skill and effects induced by framing. However, because pitch scores do not include any sort of park adjustment, there is a weaker correlation between home and road calling scores. Thus, only road pitches are used. The true catcher value should be approximately double their value on the road.

The results for the best and worst defensive catchers in 2024 are shown in Table 4. The standard deviation of framing value for catchers with at least 5000 road pitches received is 9 runs, slightly over double the previously measured value of catcher framing for road pitches.

Although most of the difference comes from additional swings induced outside of the strike zone, framing runs shown here are not directly analogous to previous measurements. Those metrics assign a constant value to each extra strike, regardless of count. However, here framing a pitch on a 3–2 count produces a much higher catcher score than on a 1–0 count,12 since the difference in wOBA is far larger. In 2024, this was a particularly strong effect for Austin Hedges and Korey Lee, who induced incorrect calls from umpires predominantly in high-leverage counts. Similarly, the metric used here is based on the exact location of each pitch, giving more credit for framing a pitch less likely to be called a strike, while the Baseball Savant version groups pitches in a broader zone together and looks at the overall fraction of called strikes within that zone.

Highest and lowest total catcher runs for pitches caught on the road in 2024 (minimum 5000 pitches). Presumably the total 2024 value for each catcher was approximately twice their road value. Framing runs are calculated based on balls outside the zone, including additional called strikes, swinging strikes, and quality contact. Pitch calling runs are calculated based on balls inside the zone, both in the adjusted swing rate and the quality of contact. Framing runs correlate strongly between home and road, but because park factors are not included in pitch score, calling value does not.

A lack of correlation between framing and calling runs supports the proposed separation. Pitch calling does not require any physical skill of the sort that might be typical of a good framing catcher. Although a catcher with a strong defensive focus might have both skills, they should correlate only very weakly. Indeed, total catcher runs inside and outside of the rulebook zone for catchers with at least 5000 road pitches caught in 2024 show no clear correlation (Pearson r value of -0.072, corresponding to a p value of 0.48 that this would occur by random chance.) However, the two effects have comparable importance, with calling producing a standard deviation of 11 runs for road pitches. As with framing, the full value should be approximately double the value found for road pitches.

The full pitch calling effect has been assigned to catchers, but in practice pitch calling is team effort and involves the pitcher, manager, and scouts. Separating these effects might be possible with sufficient data comparing players who have played for multiple teams and managers, but these do not yet exist in the PitchCom era.

In summary,

• As has been well explored in previous studies, the extra called strikes due to catcher framing are worth up to approximately 15 runs/year for the best catchers in MLB.
• Hitter adjustments swinging at additional pitches near the edges or entirely outside of the rulebook strike zone can be worth an additional 15–20 runs/year, bringing the total framing value to nearly 40 runs/year for the best catchers.
• Pitch calling might be worth up to another 25–30 runs/year for the best catchers. However, pitch calling is weakly or entirely uncorrelated with pitch framing.

DISCUSSION

In this work, pitch scores are used as a starting point to examine the effects of hitter and catcher skill. Three new effects are revealed by this analysis: (1) that the times through the order (TTO) effect is primarily due to learning from only the best hitters, rather than all of them; (2) that hitters guess what pitch is coming next as part of their approach; and (3) that pitch calling and hitter adjustments are each worth as much as the previously identified direct value of the additional called strikes induced by catcher framing.

At the major league level, teams are constantly competing to find new sources of value that allow them to use limited budgets more efficiently. All three of these effects could be exploited to gain a competitive advantage under current rules.

EXPLOITING THE TTO EFFECT WITH OPENERS

The main TTO result here is that it is driven primarily by learning from the top of the batting order rather than from all hitters. Since pitcher effectiveness declines each successive time the top of the order is faced, it makes sense to avoid letting a pitcher see the top of the lineup for a third (or even second) time when possible. The aggressive hooks that have become more common, especially in the playoffs, are therefore well supported by the data. Of course, this strategy comes at the cost of shorter outings from starters, leading to greater bullpen fatigue, which is hard to sustain over a 162-game season.

However, there may be room to extend starters further with a small tactical adjustment. The penalty for facing the bottom of the order a third time is minimal; if pitchers were limited to those hitters, they could continue pitching until fatigue forces a change. One could therefore imagine using an opener to handle the top of the order, then bringing in the starter/follower to face the bottom. In this manner, a starter who would normally be pulled after 18 batters to avoid the worst TTO effects could instead face the bottom of the order a third time, effectively adding about an extra inning per outing. This, in turn, would produce a lower bullpen workload, with several well-studied benefits.

VALUING CATCHER FIELDING

MLB teams with strong analytics departments are well aware of the value of catcher framing. For example, Austin Hedges, an excellent framing catcher coming off 2022 and 2023 seasons worth an MLB-worst combined -43 runs of offense according to FanGraphs, was still given a $4 million contract by Cleveland in 2024. After another -14 offensive runs in just 146 PA in 2024, he was re-signed for an additional $4 million in 2025. Thus, it is clear that Cleveland evaluates the excellent defense provided by Hedges as being worth more than the cost of having one of the worst hitters in Major League baseball in their lineup.

However, if the value of the catcher framing is 2–3 times greater than previously believed, an excellent defender such as Hedges is a considerable bargain. A catcher with both excellent framing and calling skills would be even more valuable, although this combination is rare because the two skills are likely uncorrelated. According to catcher score, Jake Rogers saved 61 runs in 2024, an equivalent value to the offensive contribution that earned Juan Soto’s a $765 million contract. Cal Raleigh, an excellent framing catcher with an above-average bat, could plausibly be the most valuable player in baseball with improved pitch calling.

However, a player like Rogers, or even Raleigh, at the same age as Soto could surely be signed far more cheaply as a free agent, providing considerable excess value. Further, for a team already winning well over half their games, saving runs improves a Pythagorean win estimate more than scoring the same number of extra runs. For example, scoring another 50 runs would have improved the 2024 Dodgers by an expected 4.4 wins, but preventing an additional 50 runs would have been worth 5.8 wins.

PITCH CALLING

Finally, pitch calling presents a unique opportunity because pitches can be called from the dugout. Thus, instead of signing a catcher with excellent pitch calling in addition to their other major league-level skills, a team can sign a bench coach at a much lower salary and without counting towards collectively bargained player salary thresholds. For that matter, since guessing is part of the approach of most hitters, the same bench coach could also provide improved guesses to their hitters. Bailey Freeman pointed out an analogous form of off-field value when arguing that the Royals gained several wins from an exceptionally strong replay review team.13

In the future, it appears that major league baseball may transition toward an automated ball-strike (ABS) system. If so, catcher framing would disappear and presumably hitter adjustments to catcher framing along with it. However, pitch calling, which appears to be more valuable than catcher framing and hitter adjustments, would retain its importance.

CHARLES STEINHARDT is a professor of physics at the University of Missouri, where his research focuses on the evolution of galaxies and the application of machine learning to a wide range of scientific problems. A lifelong Red Sox fan, he has carried his love of the game across the globe, playing amateur baseball during academic posts in countries including Japan and Denmark.

ZACH BOROWIAK is a physics/astronomy and statistics student at the University of Missouri who specializes in data-driven research. He applies machine learning and advanced data analytics on projects in both astrophysics, studying galaxy evolution, and baseball, looking at player performance and evaluation.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Daniel Mack and Kevin Seats for helpful comments.

Notes

1. Owen McGrattan, ” Stuff+, Location+, and Pitching+ Primer,” FanGraphs Library, March 10, 2023, accessed at https://library.fangraphs.com/pitching/stuff-location-and-pitching-primer/ on October 1, 2025.

2. Namiki, “Expected Pitch Value,” FanGraphs Community Research, May 26, 2021, accessed at https://community.fangraphs.com/expected-pitch-value/ on October 1, 2025.

3. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin, “XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System,” in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (New York: ACM, 2016), 785–94. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785.

4. Dan Blewett, “Pitch Tunneling: Is It Real? And How Do Pitchers Actually Pitch?,” The Hardball Times, June 16, 2017, accessed at https://tht.fangraphs.com/pitch-tunneling-is-it-real-and-how-do-pitchers-actually-pitch/ on October 1, 2025.

5. Ethan Moore, “Pitch Quality 4: Solving the Times Through the Order Penalty,” Prospects 365, July 16, 2020, accessed at https://prospects365.com/2020/07/16/pitch-quality-4-solving-the-times-through-the-order-penalty/ on October 1, 2025.

6. Tom Tango, Mitchell Lichtman, and Andrew Dolphin, The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball (Potomac Books, 2007).

7. Mitchel Lichtman, “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About the Times Through the Order Penalty,” Baseball Prospectus, November 5, 2013, accessed at https://www.baseballprospectus.com/news/article/22156/ on October 1, 2025.

8. Jacob Peterson, “All Innings Are Not Created Equal: How Run-Scoring Varies By Inning,” Beyond the Box Score, July 3, 2011, accessed at https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/7/3/2255959/all-innings-are-not-created-equal-how-run-scoring-varies-by-inning on October 1, 2025.

9. Ryan S. Brill, Sameer K. Deshpande, and Abraham J. Wyner, “A Bayesian Analysis of the Time Through the Order Penalty in Baseball,” Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports 19, no. 4 (2023): 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1515/jqas-2022-0116

10. David W. Smith, “Do Batters Learn During a Game?” SABR Baseball Research Journal, Vol. 34 (2005), accessed at https://sabr.org/journal/article/do-batters-learn-during-a-game/ on October 1, 2025.

11. Ted Williams and John Underwood, The Science of Hitting (Simon & Schuster, 1986).

12. Dan Meyer, “Dynamic Run Value of Throwing a Strike (Instead of a Ball),” The Hardball Times, May 6, 2015, accessed at https://tht.fangraphs.com/dynamic-run-value-of-throwing-a-strike-instead-of-a-ball/ on October 1, 2025.

13. Foolish Baseball, “Umpires Hate Him! The Replay Review MVP,” YouTube.com, August 26, 2023, accessed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmeP77TEAU8 on October 1, 2025.

I am honored and delighted to greet you as the new editor of the Baseball Research Journal. I’ve been a SABR member for nearly 15 years, and many of my most cherished memories have been made at SABR Conventions. I never dreamed I’d one day be working for the organization that has brought me so much joy, knowledge, and camaraderie.

SABR has an incredible legacy, as does the BRJ, and being part of that is not something I take lightly. Six months ago, at this year’s SABR Convention in Dallas, I was able to hear one of the originators of that legacy speak about the start of this organization, and it put my job in perspective.

Tom Hufford, the last surviving founder of SABR, was given the Bob Davids Award on the final night of the convention in June, and he recalled a memory from decades ago when SABR was in its infancy. He remembers sitting at another founder’s kitchen table, stuffing envelopes with newsletters and other information—envelopes that all had to be sealed, addressed, and stamped before they were released to the postal service. That was a time that a volunteer could truly grasp SABR in their hands, a time when the future of the organization depended on the people at that table to keep writing letters, stuffing envelopes, and organizing meetings.

Over 50 years later, SABR is a vibrant organization of over 7,400 members (and growing), with chapters across the United States and the world. At every convention I see new faces of all ages, as well as increasing gender and racial diversity. That word, “diversity,” may be divisive to some, but as baseball fans we should welcome it, as it’s part of our heritage. Baseball has been played by adults and children of every stripe for at least 200 years, and it is a sport that has drawn fans from every possible walk of life.

What could be more delightful than attending a convention that reflects the universal appeal of the sport we love? What could be more satisfying than sitting in a room with people you wouldn’t have met any other way, knowing you all share the same passion?

My main goal as the new editor of the Baseball Research Journal is to reflect and share that passion with you. The authors of the articles you’re about to read have used their passion for the game to write about aspects of it that thrill them. In this issue, we’ve got articles about the history of early baseball, the invention of a new statistic, the discovery of a lost accomplishment of a legendary player, and someone even did research on other types of baseball research. With every issue, I want to share with you some of the most interesting work being done by our members, in the hope that you’ll learn something that will enrich your love of the game.

I’m so grateful to Scott Bush, Jacob Pomrenke, and Cecilia Tan for considering and hiring me for what I’ve called my “dream baseball job.” I also have to give a very special thanks to outgoing editor Cecilia Tan for walking me through this process step by step and week by week. Her guidance has been invaluable, and her incredible work as BRJ editor over the years has served as a tremendous example for me as I seek to pick up where she leaves off.

That’s the ballgame,

– Liz Roscher
Editor, SABR Baseball Research Journal

• Buy the magazine: Purchase the print edition of the Fall 2025 Baseball Research Journal from Amazon.com
• Download the PDF: Click here to download the PDF file of the Fall 2025 Baseball Research Journal
• Read online: Articles from the Fall 2025 Baseball Research Journal are available online at SABR.org

For any members who are interested in a hard copy of the publication for their personal library, we are rolling out a new subscription option at a significantly discounted rate: $7 per issue for members, compared to $19.95 at retail. (International members will pay $11 per issue.)

• Visit SABR.org/subscribe to receive future printed editions of the BRJ in the mail. Or click here if you’d like a tutorial on how to subscribe.

The publishing world has experienced an exceptional rise in production costs over the last few years and SABR’s flagship publication has not been immune. In fact, the printing and shipping costs of the journals have increased by 60% in only four years.

The BRJ is SABR’s premier publication and every member of the staff and Board of Directors is dedicated to ensuring it maintains that status for decades to come.

As with any change, we understand that you may have questions or concerns that you would like to share. Please feel free to reach out to any SABR staff member.