Shining Light on the Smiling Stan Hack Mirror: A Bill Veeck Gamesmanship Ploy—Was It Real or Mythical?

Stan Hack, who spent his entire big-league career (1932 –47) with the Chicago Cubs, was one of baseball’s all-time top leadoff batters.1 In 1931, playing with the Sacramento Solons, he compiled a .352 batting average and earned the nickname “Smiling Stan.” As Edward Burns wrote in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, “No matter how hard the coaches rode the rookie, Stanley would beam his contagious smile.”2 The sobriquet stuck with Hack throughout his baseball career as both a player and a manager.

Bill Veeck Jr. worked for the Cubs from 1934 to 1941. His roles included serving as a liaison between fans and executives, a statistician, an office staffer, and the treasurer.3 In 1962, after stints as the principal owner of the Milwaukee Brewers (1941–45), the Cleveland Indians (1946–49), the St. Louis Browns (1951–53), and the Chicago White Sox (1959–61), Veeck wrote his autobiography, Veeck As In Wreck. In a chapter about gamesmanship, Veeck defined the term as “the art of winning without really cheating.” He provided an example:

During my days with the Cubs, we had a great third baseman, Smiling Stan Hack. I well recall that in 1935, the sale of ‘Smile-with-Stan-Hack’ mirrors was exceptionally brisk to the bleacherites. Now that I think of it, it was rather strange how the makeup of female bleacherites seemed to need attention when the opposition was hitting. … And if a beam of light occasionally shone in the batter’s eye on a particularly important pitch … well, what better pitch to choose? Unladylike? Of course. Unsporting? Perhaps. Ineffective? Oh no. Awfully, awfully effective. And, until it happened too often, perfectly legal.4

This account also appeared verbatim in a newspaper article published shortly after the book.5

After retiring as a player following the 1947 season, Hack went on to coach and manage several minor league teams, in addition to managing the Cubs from 1954 to 1956. During the 1960–1964 seasons, he took time off from baseball to operate the Stan Hack Landmark restaurant with his wife in Grand Detour, Illinois. After returning as a manager for the 1965 and 1966 seasons, Smiling Stan permanently retired from baseball and continued operating the restaurant.6 Hack passed away at age 70 on December 15, 1979. In the next day’s Chicago Tribune, David Condon quoted Veeck telling the same story, but situating it in a different year:

“Right now I can see Stan’s smile,” said Bill Veeck, an old friend who had kept in close contact with Hack. “It inspired one of my first zany ideas in baseball. I think it was the year after the 1932 World Series and I was determined to capitalize on Hack’s popularity and his smile. I believe it was after we’d sent him down to the minors for a short spell,” continued Veeck. “Anyhow, I thought up the slogan ‘Smile with Stan Hack’ and a concessionaire made me some mirrors with a grinning picture of Stan on the back. They were sold, on target day, in the bleachers. We still [? … thought? … felt? … hoped? … expected? … ?] that fans should not only enjoy Stan’s smile, but they should take advantage of the sunshine and reflect the mirrors in the faces of opposing batsmen. I believe we were playing Pittsburgh. Anyhow, the other team was furious. Umpires stopped the game, confiscated the mirrors, and threatened a forfeit if any more turned up. I’ve always hoped Stan saved one of those mirrors so he could occasionally look at it and enjoy his own smile as so many of us did.”7

THE STAN HACK MIRROR

According to the description provided in a 2016 auction, the mirror is 2.25 inches in diameter. The manufacturer was Parisian Novelty Co, Chicago. “The image is printed on fabric substance with a very fine texture.”8 See Figure 1 and Appendix A.

 

 

BILL VEECK’S CLAIMS ABOUT THE STAN HACK MIRROR

Two questions immediately jump out from Veeck’s claims: In what season, and in which specific game (or games) did the events take place? In addition to the date, I have endeavored to determine the details of the game: the inning, the players and managers, the umpires, the duration of any delay, whether there were any ejections, and whether the game was played under protest.

Hack debuted with the Cubs on April 12, 1932, and played in 72 games that season. In 1933, he appeared in three games (each as a pinch-runner) before being sent down to the Albany Senators of the Class AA International League. Hack played in 137 games for Albany before returning to the Cubs on August 29.9 He became a full-time player in 1934, slashing .289/.363/.366 over 111 games. Bill Veeck Jr. was employed by the Cubs from January 1934 through June 22, 1941. Therefore, Veeck’s claim that, “I think it was the year after the 1932 World Series” is not tenable. In 1933, Hack spent virtually the entire season in the minors, and Veeck was not with the Cubs. The earliest possible season for the Stan Hack Mirror Game is 1934.

The events are extraordinary, and would almost certainly have been reported in the Chicago press, the press of the victimized team’s hometown, and The Sporting News.

RESEARCH PROCEDURES

1. Examine multiple game accounts for every Cubs home game during the 1934–41 seasons (the years Veeck was employed by the Cubs). This was achieved by searching Newspapers.com, GenealogyBank.com, and The Sporting News, with an emphasis on the key terms of Veeck’s claims: mirror, confiscate, and forfeit.10 Scrutinize the Hack and Veeck files available at the National Baseball Library.

2. Peruse books on the history of the Chicago Cubs.

3. Speak to people with knowledge of the Stan Hack mirror.

EXAMINATION OF GAME STORIES OF CUBS HOME GAMES (1934–41)

Table 1 summarizes my examination of game accounts from the 1934–41 seasons.

 

Out of the nearly 2,700 newspaper accounts I examined, only one mentioned spectators using mirrors: the Cubs-Giants game on June 7, 1938.11 Marvin McCarthy, the Sports Editor of the Chicago Daily Times wrote, “mirrors figured only briefly—for about two innings.” There was no mention of Stan Hack, and there was no mention of the umpires stopping the game, confiscating the mirrors, or threatening a forfeit. Following up on McCarthy’s article, accounts from 12 other major daily Chicago and New York newspapers were examined in search of additional information.12 None mentioned anything about mirrors or any of Veeck’s claims. That these items were not mentioned at all seems unusual and surprising in light of the importance of the game. It was the first of a four-game series between the first-place Cubs and the second-place Giants, who were separated by just half a game in the standings.

Since the Cubs emerged with a 4–2 triumph, it is surprising that the Giants manager, Bill Terry, would not have played the game under protest. It is even more incongruous considering the fuss he made in the first inning about photographers stationed along the first base line in front of the Giants dugout. The Chicago Tribune related the incident:

Soon after the game started, seven photographers went into a flying wedge formation just back of first base when [New York’s leadoff batter] Joe Moore came to bat the first time. Terry went roaring out of the Giant dugout. “I can’t see anything that’s going on,” he shouted at Umpire Larry Goetz, who was stationed at first base. He motioned for Umpire Babe Pinelli, who was officiating back of the plate. “Throw ‘em all off the field,” the roaring Mr. Terry demanded. There was a pow wow and a compromise. The photogs stayed on the field, but had to break up the flying wedge formation, thus affording an opening through which the arrogant Giant boss was able to view the proceedings.13

 

OTHER SEARCHES FOR DETAILS ABOUT THE STAN HACK MIRROR GAME

I conducted several other searches in addition to those previously detailed. I searched The Sporting News for the years 1934 through 1941, employing the search terms mirror, mirrors, forfeit, forfeited, confiscate, and confiscated. I also searched for the years 1934 through 2003, using the search term smile with stan. I found no mention of the Stan Hack mirror or the events detailed by Veeck. (See Appendix B-1 below.)

I searched Newspapers.com for Cubs home games during the 1934–41 period, employing the search terms mirror, mirrors, forfeit, forfeited, confiscate, and confiscated. I found no mention of the Stan Hack mirror or the events detailed by Veeck. (See Appendix B-2.)

I found no mention of the events in the Stan Hack and Bill Veeck Jr. files available at the National Baseball Library at the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum.

I found no mention of the events in several books on the history of the Chicago Cubs. (See Appendix C.)

Fortunately, thanks to further searching on Newspapers.com and GenealogyBank.com for the 1942–2022 period, I did get six relevant hits, two of which are presented here. (See Appendix D for the other four.)

The first appeared on page 176 of the Chicago Tribune on April 1, 2001. It was a “Flashback” article by Nancy Watkins, whose source was “Tribune archives.” It essentially reiterated the claims in Condon’s 1979 Chicago Tribune article, although in this version Veeck himself was the one selling the mirrors:

‘Smiling Stan’ Hack was one of the most popular players of his day. Once, Bill Veeck Jr. walked the Wrigley Field bleachers selling mirrors featuring a grinning picture of the third baseman on the back with the slogan, ‘Smile With Stan Hack.’ The fans began shining the mirrors into opposing batters’ eyes, and the items were promptly confiscated.14

The second hit was a response to the first, appearing on page 164 of the Chicago Tribune on May 20, 2001. It was a letter to the editor with the heading “Reflections,” and it provided support for the claims in Watkins’ article:

I was happy to see the article about Stan Hack [Flashback, April 1]. I have one of those mirrors. As Nancy Watkins’ article stated, Bill Veeck Jr. sold them, or passed them out, to the bleacher fans, and they would flash them into the eyes of the opposing batters. The umpires halted the game and served notice that the mirrors go, or the Cubs forfeit! As I remember, only a limited number of the mirrors were made by ‘Parisian Novelty Co. Chicago’ (the company name is on the rim of the mirror). Rudy Drnek/Brookfield15

INTERVIEWS OF PEOPLE WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE STAN HACK MIRROR

In 2023, I had the opportunity to speak with Jim Drnek, Rudy Drnek’s son.16 The Drneks have been Cubs fans for generations. Rudy, who passed away at age 92 in 2012, would have been 18 years old on June 7, 1938. Jim recalls his dad recounting the story of the Stan Hack mirror, as well as the fact that he sold the mirror in his later years. Jim does not know how his dad, who was not a collector of baseball memorabilia, obtained the mirror. Although Rudy Drnek did not state that he had attended the game, it’s entirely possible that he was there. Jim Drnek has likened this uncertainty to the famous question involving Babe Ruth’s called shot: “Did he point?”

I also had the opportunity to speak with two members of Stan Hack’s family. I asked Stanford Hack, one of Stan’s five children, about his recollections of his dad and the Stan Hack mirror in early 2023.17 Stanford related that his dad did not have one of the mirrors, and that he does not recall him ever mentioning the incident. Stanford first learned the story by reading about it after his dad passed away.

Grandson Richard Stephens, the son of Hack’s daughter Barbara Dee (Hack) Stephens, had never heard of the mirror until I mentioned it to him.18 He said his mother would have told him about the story if she had known about it. Richard also mentioned that he asked his aunt, Beverly Pearl (Hack) Berti, if she had any knowledge or recollections of the mirror. She told him she didn’t.

Lastly, I had the opportunity to speak with Mike Veeck, Bill’s son, in February, 2023.19 Mike never saw the Stan Hack mirror and didn’t recall the topic ever coming up. Mike said that Stan Hack was Bill Veeck’s favorite Cubs player. Mike recalled his dad telling him that he would bring Hack four or five hot dogs between the first and second games of doubleheaders.

DISCUSSION

There are several items about the Stan Hack Mirror Game that merit discussion. First and foremost, the reality of the Stan Hack mirror is incontrovertible, as demonstrated by the 2016 auction and Rudy Drnek’s letter. Second, Bill Veeck Jr. twice made claims about heliographic events—extraordinary events, in my opinion—surrounding the mirror. Third, as demonstrated in Appendix D, (at least) seven other people have subsequently published articles in which it appears that they merely rephrased Veeck’s claims without providing the specific date of the game.

Fourth, I have carried out a virtually exhaustive search for independent, contemporary evidence in support of Veeck’s claims. I found only one game in which it was reported that “heliograph experts” used mirrors to reflect sunlight into the eyes of opposing batters: the Cubs-Giants game on June 7, 1938. Whether or not the mirrors employed were Stan Hack mirrors was not stated. Therefore, it is not known for certain whether that was the Stan Hack Mirror Game. Fifth, I did not find any independent documentation which lends credence to any of Veeck’s claims:

1. There being a game in which fans used Stan Hack mirrors to reflect sunlight into the faces (eyes) of the visiting players (batters).

2. There being such a game in which the umpires stopped the game.

3. There being such a game in which the umpires confiscated the Stan Hack mirrors.

4. There being such a game in which the umpires threatened to forfeit the game.

Thus, the June 7, 1938, Cubs-Giants game does not align with the claims made by Veeck.20 The Cubs won, and Bill Terry did not object to “heliograph experts” hindering his batters by playing the game under protest. This suggests that the impact of the use of mirrors was actually insignificant, if even noticeable.

I asked Professor (Emeritus) Alan Nathan, a physicist and SABR member, what impact a pocket mirror 2¼ inches in diameter could have on a batter some 350 feet away (the approximate distance between the Wrigley Field bleachers and home plate). Nathan responded, “Without having done any serious analysis, I am skeptical that something that small could reflect enough sunlight at that distance to be an annoyance to the batter.”21

Another item that merits discussion is the last sentence of Veeck’s version: “And, until it happened too often, perfectly legal.” This statement suggests that some rule was subsequently enacted—after “it happened too often”—making the use of mirrors by fans to reflect sunlight onto a player’s face illegal. It is not known what Veeck meant by “too often.” Too many games, or too many times in one game? Two of the subsequent versions of the story (detailed in Appendix D) also stated that such a (preemptive) rule was enacted. I checked the official rules for spectator interference for the years from 1934 through 2022 and found nothing about prohibiting the use of mirrors to interfere with the performance of players or umpires.

In summary, my essentially exhaustive effort to elucidate the exact date of the “Stan Hack Mirror Game” described by Veeck appears to have been unsuccessful. Perhaps what Bill Veeck Jr. claimed to have happened didn’t actually happen. As such, it could be argued that I am attempting to controvert the longstanding philosophical axiom, “You can’t prove a negative.” Here are a few additional axioms that are pertinent in this case:

• Hitchens’ Razor: “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”22 Veeck, as well as those who essentially repeated his claims, made his assertion without evidence, i.e., identifying the specific game. Therefore, they may be dismissed without evidence. However, I have provided an abundance of evidence that does not support Veeck’s claims.
• The Sagan Standard: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”23 In my opinion, Veeck’s claims are extraordinary. I find it absolutely incredulous that no players (particularly those impacted), no managers, no umpires, no journalists covering the game (other than Marvin McCarthy) ever mentioned anything at all that substantiated Veeck’s claims.
• “Proving a negative can be accomplished by providing evidence of absence, scientific evidence gathered from scientific research that shows absence. At that point the burden of proof shifts to those who claim the positive.”24

This is precisely what I have accomplished: methodically gathering an abundance of evidence that shows the absence of evidence for (a) fans using Stan Hack mirrors to reflect sunlight onto the faces (eyes) of the Cubs opposing players (batters); (b) umpires stopping such a game; (c) umpires confiscating the Stan Hack mirrors in such a game; (d) umpires threatening a forfeit in such a game. Thus, I contend the burden of proof shifts to those who concur with Veeck’s claims about the Stan Hack mirror.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Having stated my contention, I also wholeheartedly endorse the conclusion of Jules Tygiel’s article in the 2006 Baseball Research Journal, “Revisiting Bill Veeck and the 1943 Phillies”. Tygiel discovered evidence to support a different Veeck claim that had previously been (seemingly definitively) debunked by David M. Jordan, Larry Gerlach, and John P. Rossi.25 Tygiel wrote:

they had correctly chastised earlier historians for accepting Veeck’s narrative at face value and injected a dose of skepticism, replacing unwarranted certainty with healthy debate. Their own rush to judgment, however, offers yet another cautionary tale of relying on an absence of evidence and overreaching one’s resources in drawing conclusions.”26

It is now the responsibility of those who believe Veeck to produce original, independent, contemporary evidence—not hearsay—in support of Veeck’s claims. In other words, they must identify the specific Stan Hack Mirror Game. I asked Mike Veeck what he thought about my contention. His response was, quote-unquote, “Perfect.” Mike then added that perhaps his dad was winking when he related the story to Condon the day after Hack’s passing. The wink possibility adds another layer of uncertainty.

Thus, my final words on the Stan Hack Mirror Game are:

• It really did happen, but I was unable to ascertain the date and corroborate the extraordinary claims made by Bill Veeck.
• It did not happen. It’s a myth—a tall tale concocted by Veeck and told with a wink. 

HERM KRABBENHOFT is a lifetime Detroit Tigers fan, retired organic chemist, and longtime SABR member (since 1981). Among the various baseball research topics he has pioneered are: Ultimate Grand Slam Homers, Consecutive Games On Base Safely (CGOBS) Streaks, Quasi-Cycles, Imperfect Perfectos, Minor League Day-In/ Day-Out Double-Duty Diamondeers, Downtown Golden Sombreros. Herm is the author of Leadoff Batters of Major League Baseball (McFarland, 2001). He has received three SABR Baseball Research Awards (1992, 1996, 2013).

 

Acknowledgments

I gratefully thank Jerry Adams, Larry Annis, Jack Bales, Cliff Blau, Bill Deane, Jim Drnek, Stanford Hack, Eric Hanauer, Ed Hartig, Richard Hershberger, Bill Hickman, Steve Hirdt, Cassidy Lent, Gary Livacari, David McDonald, Alan Nathan, Dave Newman, Pete Palmer, John Racanelli, Jeff Robbins, Tom Shieber, Caleb Simonds, Richard Smiley, Cary Smith, Richard Stephens, Don Stokes, Gary Stone, Patrick Todgham, Mike Veeck, and Al Yellon for valuable help and/or discussions.

 

Notes

1 Herman O. Krabbenhoft, Leadoff Batters of Major League Baseball (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc. Publishers, 2006); Herm Krabbenhoft, “Stan Hack: Leadoff Batter Extraordinaire,” The National Pastime (2023), 78–88.

2 Edward Burns, “Hack, Cubs’ Rookie Infielder, Plucked Out of Bank on Coast,” Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY), January 10, 1932.

3 “Another Bill Veeck With Cubs,” Brooklyn Times Union, January 31, 1935; Francis J. Powers, “National Loop Bent On Selling Game As Show,” The Daily Argus-Leader (Sioux Falls, SD), March 19, 1935; Arch Ward, “Talking It Over,” Chicago Tribune, October 31, 1936; Edward Burns, “New Wrigley Field Blooms in Scenic Beauty—and Scoffers Rush to Apologize,” Chicago Tribune, September 12, 1937; “Box Seat Supply Dwindles; Will Grandstand Do?,” Chicago Tribune, October 2, 1938; Irving Vaughan, “Cubs Trading Staff Returns Empty Handed, Hopeful,” Chicago Tribune, December 17, 1938; “Give Gallagher Cubs’ General Managership,” Chicago Tribune, November 15, 1940.

4 Bill Veeck and Ed Linn, Veeck as in Wreck (New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1962), 58.

5 Bill Veeck, “Gamesmanship Helped Indians Win 1948 AL Pennant,” News-Journal (Mansfield, OH), September 14, 1962.

6 Eric Hanauer, “Stan Hack,” SABR BioProject, last revised April 25, 2022 (accessed December 17, 2022), https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/stan-hack/

7 David Condon, “Cub fans, smile if you loved Stan Hack,” Chicago Tribune, December 16, 1979.

8 “Stanley C. Hack/SMILE WITH ME” pocket mirror, Hake’s Auctions, March 15, 2016 (accessed December 18, 2022), hakes.com/Auction/ItemDetail/201987/stanley-c-hacksmile-with-me-pocket-mirror

9 Irving Vaughan, “Rain Again Puts Double Header On Cub Program,” Chicago Tribune, August 29, 1933.

10 Chicago newspapers examined included the Chicago Tribune, Chicago Daily News, and Chicago Daily Times. Newspapers from the cities of visiting teams included: Boston (Globe; Herald); Brooklyn (Daily Eagle; Citizen; Times Union); Cincinnati (Enquirer; Post); New York (Daily News); Philadelphia (Inquirer); Pittsburgh (Post-Gazette; Press, Sun-Telegraph); St. Louis (Globe-Democrat; Post-Dispatch; Star-Times).

11 Marvin McCarthy, Daily Times (Chicago, IL), June 8, 1938.

12 Chicago Tribune, Chicago Daily News, Chicago Evening American, Chicago Herald-Examiner, New York Daily Mirror, New York Daily News, New York Herald-Tribune, New York Journal American, New York Post, New York Sun, New York Times, and New York World-Telegram.

13 French Lane, “Dizzy Finds a Snap; Relief Duty for Lee,” Chicago Tribune, June 8, 1938.

14 Nancy Watkins, “Flashback 1939—Smile Baseball’s Back,” Chicago Tribune, April 01, 2001.

15 Rudy Drnek, “In-Box—Reflections on baseball,” Chicago Tribune, May 20, 2001.

16 Jim Drnek, telephone interviews, January 4 and February 8, 2023; email exchanges January 5, January 13–15, February 1, and February 10, 2023.

17 Stanford Hack, telephone interviews, January 20–23, 2023; email exchanges January 20–22, January 31, February 6, February 8, and February 10, 2023.

18 Richard L. Stephens, telephone interview, February 14, 2023; email exchange, February 14, 2023.

19 Mike Veeck, telephone interview, February 9, 2023; email exchange January 27 and February 10, 2023.

20 Thank you to an anonymous peer reviewer, who wrote, “I know a Cincinnati game, September 22, 1937, was interrupted by a fan with a mirror. The 1937 incident was minor, but could be/should be mentioned as a predecessor to this 1938 ‘promotion.’” Here’s what I was able to find reported about this incident: Lou Smith, “Nose Dive Taken By Reds,” Cincinnati Enquirer, September 23, 1937: “A female Redleg-hater shined a mirror in the eyes of our hitters until Umpire Sears spotted her in the window in a building back of the bleachers and shook his huge ham-like fist at her.” The Sporting News, September 30, 1937: “Evidently a young woman who lives in a building back of the bleachers at Crowley Field in Cincinnati does not care much about the Reds. During the September 22 game with the Phillies, Cincy batters, who had trouble seeing the pitches of Claude Passeau, anyway, complained that somebody was shining a mirror in their eyes when they were at the plate. Investigation disclosed that the shafts [of light] were from the nearby window. There wasn’t much the umpires could do about it, but the young woman disappeared from the window, mirror and all, when Ziggy Sears shook a fist at her.”

21 Alan Nathan, email exchange, February 21, 2023.

22 Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great (New York: Twelve, 2007), 161.

23 Carl Sagan, Broca’s Brain (New York: Presidio Press, 1974) 73.

24 Thomas DeMichael, “You Can’t Prove a Negative—MYTH,” July 26, 2017; last updated March 1, 2021 (accessed February 08, 2023), http://factmyth.com/factoids/you-cant-prove-a-negative/.

25 David M. Jordan, Larry Gerlach, and John P. Rossi, “A Baseball Myth Exploded: The Truth About Bill Veeck and the ’43 Phillies,” The National Pastime, No. 18 (SABR, 1998), 3. See also: Paul Dickson, Bill Veeck, Baseball’s Greatest Maverick (New York, NY: Walker & Company, 2012), 357; Norman L. Macht and Robert D. Warrington, “The Veracity of Veeck,” SABR Baseball Research Journal, Volume 42, (2013), 17.

26 Jules Tygiel, “Revisiting Bill Veeck and the 1943 Phillies,” SABR Baseball Research Journal, Volume 35 (2003), 109.