There is not a person alive in the industrialized world who has not been touched directly or indirectly by the wonders of medical science. Death-sentence diseases of the past, like cancer, now carry longer and longer commutation periods, thanks to advanced early detection and modern surgical techniques. The twentieth century discovery of insulin has been a game-changer after generations of suffering from chronic high glucose blood levels. Vaccines to stop a once-in-a-hundred-year pandemic have been rolled out in record time, saving millions from death or disability.

However, there is no cutting-edge technology or panacea drug for most neurological disorders. The number of neurocognitive disorders is unfortunately many, including strokes, brain injury, Parkinson’s, and dementia. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defines dementia as “not a specific disease but is rather a general term for the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities. Alzheimer’s disease is the most common type of dementia.”1 These disorders plague more members of our society every year, and place increasing degrees of physical and psychological burdens on their loved ones.

Alzheimer’s, as most people know, targets mostly seniors. “Alzheimer’s disease is a progressive neurological disease that causes the brain to shrink (atrophy) and brain cells to die,” explained a Mayo Clinic overview. “Approximately 5.8 million people in the United States 65 and older live with Alzheimer’s Disease. Of those, 80% are 75 years old and older. There is yet no treatment that cures Alzheimer’s or that alters the disease process in the brain.

Different programs and services can help support people with Alzheimer’s disease.”2 In other words, there is no medical cure for Alzheimer’s, and the focus for care-givers is on supporting the cognitive function and stimulation, emotional wellbeing, and overall quality of life.

A popular service program is reminiscence, recounting pleasant memories of the past. Reminiscence programs date back six decades. “Dr. Robert Butler, a psychiatrist with a specialty in geriatric medicine, first spoke of the idea of a ‘life review’ in the 1960s,” illuminated one health blog. “Butler … is credited with the idea that reminiscing could be therapeutic. At the time, psychiatrists did not think it was a good idea for people to always be ‘living in the past,’ but Butler disagreed and made it clear that reminiscence was a natural process of healthy aging.”3

Over the past few decades, reminiscence programs focused on music, singing, cinema, art and crafts have become popular offerings to people living with dementia. “Reminiscence therapy is a popular psychosocial intervention widely used in dementia care,” published the Dementia Services Development Centre Wales, Bangor University, Bangor, UK, in 2018. “It involves discussion of past events and experiences, using tangible prompts to evoke memories or stimulate conversation.”4

“For reasons not fully understood, nearly two-thirds of the people with memory loss are women,” cited the main webpage of Kensington Place Redwood City, one of California’s leading Assisted Living Facilities. “The most likely explanation is that women tend to live, on average, five years longer than men. This increases the likelihood of developing dementia.” That statistic notwithstanding, men are no less spared the feelings of loneliness and depression associated with these chronic disorders. “A new program primarily focused on men with Alzheimer’s Disease and other dementias was launched in Scotland in 2009 titled Football Memories,” informed the Kensington Place Redwood City ALF. “It focuses on getting groups of men together to reminisce about soccer, but it can easily be extended to include any popular sport.”5

More recently, baseball reminiscence programs have been viewed favorably as an effective means to enhance the well-being of those living with these debilitating diseases. Per an investigation by the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR): “The first baseball reminiscence program in the US was the Cardinals Reminiscence League (CRL), modeled on the Scottish programs. Begun in 2011, [CRL] was a joint effort by the Alzheimer’s Association, St. Louis University, the Veteran’s Administration, and the St. Louis Cardinals Hall of Fame and Museum.”6

Beginning in 2015, SABR volunteers in Austin, Texas—led by Jim Kenton and working with Alzheimer’s Texas—began offering a program based on the Cardinals Reminiscence League model. For Jim, the volunteer work struck a personal chord. “My father had dementia in his later years,” he recounted. “He served in the Navy, and there were times he didn’t know who I was, but he had a book with pictures of the ships he served on, and I could always count on that book to get the conversation going [between us]. When I read about the CRL program, it combined two different loves. I’ve been a baseball geek all my life, and since I retired the opportunity to serve others in memory of my dad, and what he went through, led us to start the program here.”7

To help more broadly characterize the initiative in Austin, “Talking Baseball” was adopted as its program name (still in use today). The work of Jim and his associates has been enthusiastically received, based on comments like this from an enthusiastic Austin care partner: “You are really on to something. My husband has had Alzheimer’s for 11 years that we know of; he and I have been part of a variety of programs to respond to the challenges of dementia. The Baseball Memories group that you have created is at the top of that list. You have a real gift for bridging the divide that can result from this disease.”8

The baseball-themed gatherings have also become popular with organizations that serve people with other long-term health issues, up to and including long-term institutionalization. “It is amazing to see some of our closed-off veterans initiate conversations and even socialize in group settings who normally do not,” said a staff member from the Kerrville, Texas, Veterans Administration Hospital. “It gives our residents a comfortable way to ease into conversation allowing opportunities to share experiences and even have an occasional laugh.”9 The partners and participants at Kerrville refer to their program as “The Baseball Guys.”

Similar SABR-led programs not only expanded to multiple sites in Texas, but to Westchester County, New York, and Cos Cob, Connecticut, over the next few years. In 2018, SABR’s Los Angeles chapter reached out to Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, a local non-profit services organization. That contact evolved into a full-fledged sponsorship for their program, called “BasebALZ.”

“SABR has worked closely with Alzheimer’s LA to deliver the BasebALZ program, a reminiscence program that uses baseball as a topic to invoke and discuss memories of participants with Alzheimer’s disease or other types of dementia,”10 stated Anne Oh, Manager, Support Groups & Activity Programs for Alzheimer’s Los Angeles. “BasebALZ is one of our most popular and effective programs at Alzheimer’s LA. The program encourages participants to tap into their own memories, specifically around the topic of baseball. You can see how just talking about baseball lights our participants up. They have so much to share, whether childhood memories of playing, meeting a past baseball player, or simply about being at a game. Simple triggers like holding a baseball or singing, ‘Take Me Out to the Ballgame,’ which Jon [Leonoudakis] has them do every session, brings back those enjoyable memories.”11

“I love the program,” expressed one participant in the Los Angeles program to co-host Jeff Hubbard. “It is marvelous.”12

“I’m 91 years old and love the quizzes,”13 chimed a nonagenarian partaker from the same group.

Another happy partnership involved the West Los Angeles VA Home for Heroes. “The program stimulates their [participants’] long-term memory, improves self-esteem, and self-efficacy,” shared the partner liaison at the Home for Heroes. “It’s top-notch with so many benefits, and attendance has grown steadily in 2021. The last session had 13 attendees; nearly all are in wheel-chairs and walkers with seats.”14 When asked about additional benefits, the liaison mentioned, “Socialization. Baseball Memories attracts people who don’t typically engage in most of our programs, as they are very independent individuals. There’s a good amount of buzz about the program among our group here.”15

Baseball Memories programs are customized by the local volunteers to appeal to their particular audiences of participants and attending care partners. The program “branding” is intended to have both meaning and local appeal, and is used by local partners to market the program. Examples (some mentioned above) are “BasebALZ,” “Talking Baseball,” “The Baseball Guys,” “The Baseball Hour” (in New York), “The Cardinals Reminiscence League,” and currently “Baseball Memories.” While agendas and content vary, baseball reminiscence programs generally share these characteristics:

• They are offered bi-weekly or monthly; either in-person or online.
• Length is from one to two hours.
• Singing is popular—usually “Take Me Out to the Ballgame,” the National Anthem, and any other songs that may invoke pleasant memories of the past.
• One or two baseball topics are presented for discussion.
• Other reminiscence topics are woven in (e.g. TV and radio shows, cinema, history).
• Additional indoor or outdoor activities (e.g. a Twist contest, Wiffle ball soft toss or batting practice).

While the programs were initially targeting those living with Alzheimer’s, it quickly became apparent to program volunteers that the care partners were equally important customers of these programs. “One in five full-time workers in the United States is a caregiver,” according to a Rosalynn Carter Institute for Caregivers survey released in September 2021. “About 45% of family caregivers who are employed full time said they had to go part time at some point and roughly two in ten said they had to quit their jobs altogether.”16 Care-givers are highly involved, and baseball reminiscence program content and activities have evolved to be inclusive of the caregiver as well as their partner.

REASONS FOR THE STUDY

In 2020, the SABR Board of Directors embraced baseball reminiscence by formalizing a Baseball Memories Chartered Community. This group now acts as an enabling force to promote the widespread adoption of baseball reminiscence programs. Since this broader effort was initiated in the summer of 2020, new programs were implemented in Cleveland, San Diego, and Las Vegas. SABR members are currently exploring program possibilities in many more locations.

Under the umbrella of SABR’s Baseball Memories Chartered Community, a Baseball Memories Research Study was launched to explore the effects of baseball reminiscence programs in an organized, consistent, and professional manner. Key goals and objectives were to “gather both quantitative and qualitative data, producing reports that will aid our outreach and help further promote awareness.” Likewise, fundamentally to “get more people involved, through members and volunteers…including family and friends. We wish to reach more potential partner organizations, in order to reach still more participants and their care partners.”17

As outreach continues, prospective partner organizations may ask for evidence concerning the effectiveness of these programs. This study was intended to gather both quantitative and qualitative data to address that question.

METHODOLOGY

Overview

A “pilot” study of the effectiveness of the various baseball reminiscence programs was established relevant to the number of current participants and care partners. It accumulated quantitative data on respondents’ quality of life, as well as both quantitative and qualitative data on their views of the programs, using measurement tools that are minimally intrusive. Introduction letters to its partner organizations (Alzheimer’s Associations, VA groups, all others) and potential participants and care partners were standardized. Targeting both Alzheimer’s and other dementia sufferers, as well as other participants (those isolated, with long-term disabilities, institutionalized), consent forms and confidentiality agreements were written to adhere to ethical standards. Survey questionnaires and an interviewer’s guide were developed to serve as tools to promote consistency and avoid bias in the execution of the Baseball Memories Research Study. The supporting literature review and details about the study design follow.

Literature Review

Two research reports were issued on the original Cardinals Reminiscence League baseball program.18 Both studies reported positive results in terms of the feasibility of baseball reminiscence offerings, of improvement in participants’ engagement and enjoyment, plus willingness of all parties to continue the programs. They also stressed the need for a more controlled study with more participants over a longer time frame.

Researchers at Clemson University planned and executed a quasi-experimental study using Clemson collegiate football as the reminiscence topic.19 In addition to affirming the findings from the CRL studies, the Clemson study was able to report quantitative data on improvement in quality-of-life measurements (an overall improvement of 14–18% that was statistically significant). A small improvement in cognition measurements was also reported, although the authors cautioned as to the significance of this finding due to the small sample size and inability to control outside influences. The authors stressed the need for more research, and also the extension of the research beyond Alzheimer’s/dementia subjects to include older adults experiencing loneliness or social isolation.

Study Design

Baseball Memories and participating partners can provide the number of programs and participants, plus the longevity, to conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of baseball reminiscence programming. Over time, this will provide a significant base of programs, participants, care partners, and volunteers for study.

Baseball Memories envisioned focal points for a study of baseball reminiscence to be:

• Gather quality-of-life data from participants and care partners, with an interest in how reminiscence programs affect human perceptions of well-being.
• Gather both quantitative data for measurement of program effectiveness and qualitative data for evaluation and program improvements.
• Gather supporting data from volunteers.
• Use existing, widely-used measurement tools if possible.
• Include participants with varying lengths of exposure to our programs (with expectations to have participants that are brand new to the program, as well as those with longer involvement).
• Include both Alzheimer’s and other dementia participants as well as other adult participants (those isolated, with long-term health issues, or institutionalized).
• Be easy to administer and minimally intrusive.
• Be able to re-sample periodically so as to support longitudinal evaluation.

Considering the current number of baseball reminiscence programs in operation, and the fact that some have been suspended or otherwise negatively impacted due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Baseball Memories evaluated how much participation it could reasonably expect near-term. Taking into account the statistical significance of the number of respondents that the investigative group could realistically expect to participate, and its desire to measure both program effectiveness as well as quality-of-life impacts, Baseball Memories chose to break its research effort into two phases:

Phase 1 (also referred to as the “Pilot” study) was an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing baseball reminiscence programs. It gathered both quantitative and qualitative data from current participants, care partners, and volunteers, with a set goal of at least thirty interviews with participants and care partners, as well as a self-administered survey to be completed by volunteers. A one-year time schedule was developed to achieve this, with the “clock” starting April 1, 2020.

Phase 2 (Informed by the results of Phase 1) Baseball Memories envisions a follow-on study(s) with a larger sample size enabled by continued adoption of baseball reminiscence programs. This will provide for further evaluation of the impact on respondents’ quality of life over time, and with stronger statistical significance.

To meet its goals, Baseball Memories constructed a survey questionnaire with three sections:

A. Quantitative quality-of-life questions

B. Quantitative and Qualitative questions about respondents’ evaluation of our programs

C. Demographic questions

In addition to the research previously cited, also conducted was a literature review of Quality-of-Life (QOL) measurement tools. The summary paper by Bowling, et.al. was particularly useful in comparing strengths of various quality-of-life measurement instruments.20 While several of these instruments were shown to be highly effective, it was determined that they were too time intensive and too intrusive for the baseball reminiscence audience. Consequently, Baseball Memories developed a set of nine quantitative QOL questions that were deemed more appropriate, less intrusive, and could be easily answered.

For the questions relating to program evaluation, Baseball Memories sought respondents’ feedback about their experiences attending the baseball reminiscence offerings. In particular, was the experience enjoyable? Did the program promote a sense of community among the attendees and volunteers? Did the program add to their self-esteem and overall sense of wellbeing? What program components did they like; not like? A set of four quantitative and three qualitative questions was developed to gather this feedback.

Baseball Memories also wanted to gather demographic data and therefore included questions about the respondents’ age, sex, length of time attending a baseball reminiscence program, and whether or not they had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s/dementia. The resultant questionnaire used with participants and care partners is included as Appendix A.

Finally, a separate volunteer questionnaire that could be self-administered by our program volunteers became of standard use. This questionnaire asked volunteers about their motivation(s) to participate, their experiences as volunteers, and their feedback and suggestions about program content and delivery. The Volunteer Questionnaire is included as Appendix B.

RESULTS

Survey data were collected throughout the summer and fall of 2021. SABR program volunteers interviewed participants and their care partners, using the Baseball Memories Survey Questionnaire (Appendix A). Program volunteers self-administered the Baseball Memories Volunteer Questionnaire (Appendix B). All results were submitted to the project statistician for compilation and analyses.

Demographics

A total of 31 participant and care partner responses were received. These responses came exclusively from SABR’s well-established programs in Los Angeles (at Alzheimer’s LA and the Veteran’s Administration Home for Heroes) and Texas (at the Alzheimer’s Texas offerings in Austin and Georgetown). The 31 responses consisted of:

Twenty-five (25) volunteers submitted responses. These responses represented active volunteers based broadly across established and newer programs:

• Las Vegas: 1
• Los Angeles: 3
• Texas: 14
• St. Louis: 2
• Cleveland: 3
• New York: 1
• Not identified: 1
• Total: 25

Participants and their care partners were mostly born in the 1940s and 1950s and reflected partner couples. A few of the care partners were younger, generally representing adult children of the participants. Participants and care partners reported, on average, having attended a baseball reminiscence program for 2+ years. A handful of Texas respondents have been involved for five or more years. Responding participants were all men, while the care partners were almost all women (only one responding care partner was male).

Likewise, volunteers were mostly aged in their sixties or seventies. Volunteers’ involvement averaged 3+ years overall, with over one-third of the volunteers reporting having been active for five or more years. Volunteers were mostly men, with only two of the twenty-five volunteer respondents being women.

Quality of Life

The survey questionnaire contained nine “Quality-of-Life” questions. Respondents were asked to gauge their current situation using a four-point scale. Mean scores for the participants and care partners can be seen in Table 1 below.

Very few respondents (3) answered with the same score for all nine questions. Likewise, individual answers varied. The difference between caregivers’ and participants’ responses was statistically significant. All of these factors indicate that the respondents gave due consideration to answering the questionnaire. Feedback from the interviewers reinforces this: The respondents took the survey seriously and answered honestly.

The care partners’ composite assessment of their quality of life (3.20) was higher than the participants living with dementia (2.77). Participants at the VA, who generally were dealing with chronic health issues other than dementia, rated in between (3.04). Overall, the total composite score of 3.01 indicates the respondents as a whole rated their quality of life as “Good.”

Program Evaluation

The survey questionnaire contained both quantitative and qualitative questions about respondents’ assessment of the Baseball Memories program they were attending. The four quantitative questions asked respondents to rate the value they received from the program, in terms of the frequency they felt they received that value. Respondents were asked to express their true feelings, and not necessarily what they thought the interviewer might want to hear. They were asked to respond using a four-point scale. Mean scores on the quantitative questions are in Table 2 below):

Feedback as to respondents’ evaluation of the programs was highly positive among all subgroups of attendees. Respondents enjoy the programs and feel strongly that their participation is a plus for their wellbeing.

When asked about specific aspects of the Baseball Memories programs they were attending, respondents said almost unanimously that they liked:

Hearing and sharing baseball stories and memories, and generally memories of the past, are key elements of all baseball reminiscence programs.

Other aspects of program content tend to be location-specific or have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic that has forced most programs to switch from in-person to online sessions over the last two years. Yet, these approaches can be valuable and should be considered when programs return to in-person sessions:

An example of a pandemic effect is the feedback on singing. This is popular in-person but more difficult to do online, thus generating the most negative responses.

Respondents were asked to further comment on program components (Q14) and to share anything else that they felt was noteworthy (Q15). These open-ended questions generated over ninety comments and suggestions. Some key, often-mentioned topics were:

• The facilitators, volunteers, and guest speakers do a great job.
• High level of satisfaction with the program. It’s valuable for both participants and caregivers. Likewise, the program is valuable for both men and women.
• The frequency and length of the programs are about right. If anything, respondents would like to attend even more often.

Some representative quotations are:

• “The best part of the program is how you make sure everyone is involved.”
• “I love the program. It is marvelous. It is perfect just as it is.”
• “It’s healthy for us to have some way to socialize. The program provides that.”

The final program evaluation question asked for respondents’ preferences for meeting online or in person. The same question was also posed to volunteers:

There was a distinct preference for meeting in person. Participants and volunteers felt there are multiple benefits to interacting “live,” such as more personal contact, ability to activate other senses such as handling baseball equipment and memorabilia, the smell of “ballpark food,” and doing outside activities.

Care partners did have some preference to meet online. They cited inconvenience in preparation and avoiding longer drives in traffic. Volunteers in Los Angeles stated that their program participation actually increased when their program went online due to pandemic concerns. Some specific feedback was:

• “In person is easier to interact with others.” “ I like sharing in person.”
• “In person is better. Socialization is important. I like the hybrid idea of doing both in person and online.”
• “Online is easier”
• “Fridays in L.A. just don’t work. Please keep the meetings online.”

Impact of Programs on Quality of Life

Both quantitative and qualitative data strongly suggest that attending a Baseball Memories program has a positive impact on the quality of life of participants and their care partners. When asked if their participation helps improve their well-being (Q13), 97% of respondents answered either “always” or “often.” By comparison, when asked to rate the quality of their life overall (Q9), 83% said it was “good” or “excellent.”

When comparing the sum of respondents’ QOL scores (y axis, Q1-Q9 – max score 36) as a function of the sum of their Baseball Memories Program Evaluation scores (x axis, Q10-Q13 – max score 16), we see the following relationship:

This reflects a weak positive correlation, due to the strong overall scores given to the program itself (x axis) and the many impacts on their QOL that are outside the scope of this study. It appears that, regardless of the respondents’ self-evaluation of their QOL (y axis), they feel strongly that the Baseball Memories program is a positive experience for them.

Qualitative comments related to the impact of the programs on respondents’ Quality of Life reinforce this positive relationship:

• “I strongly believe this program makes a difference in the lives of everyone involved. Life is very hard for everyone now and this program helps.”
• “My husband has great baseball memories, and it means the world that he gets to share them.”
• “The program has changed our lives.”

The following two charts reflect Quality of Life (sum of responses to the nine QOL questions) and Program Results (sum of responses to the four Program Evaluation questions) plotted against respondents’ time attending a Baseball Memories program (in years):

Figure 2. Quality of Life as a Function of Time in the Program

Respondents’ assessment of their Quality of Life declines over time due to advancing age and increasing effects of Alzheimer’s or other chronic health issues, whereas their views as to the value they get from attending a Baseball Memories program holds steady.

Volunteer Results

The self-administered questionnaire (Appendix B) asked volunteers to provide feedback on their motivation to participate in a baseball reminiscence program and their experiences doing so. A desire to help others and give back to the community were strong factors, especially when combined with a family member or friend having dealt with dementia or other chronic health issues:

Volunteers’ experiences with the program were consistent with their motivation for getting involved. There was strong agreement among volunteers that they were, indeed, helping others. In a related question, 96% of volunteers (23 of 24 responses) stated they felt the program was valuable to the participants and care partners. In addition to being valuable to that audience, volunteers felt their own experiences were both enjoyable and rewarding. Volunteers strongly felt their efforts were worthwhile, and they would highly recommend volunteering to others.

In addition to the quantitative results above, volunteers provided over seventy qualitative responses about the program. Some of the often-mentioned statements are:

• Strong sentiments expressed as to the positive value of the program for all involved.
• Would like to get back to in-person sessions.
• Need to continually focus on content that’s of interest to the participants and their care partners; and will get the participants talking.
• Need more women volunteers.

A few verbatim comments from volunteers are:

• “I see the energy that participants exhibit during the sessions. I’ve had both participants and caregivers tell me directly of its value.”
• “Not a medical program. A time to forget about their problems. People with like issues to talk to.”
• “It is an incredibly rewarding experience.” “So glad I did it.”
• “To be able to meet in person.” “… get the on-site meetings going again instead of online”
• “More women volunteers. The women caretakers are more likely to open up to other women about sensitive problems.”

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was able to gather both quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate the value of baseball reminiscence programs. Participants, their care partners, and program volunteers all strongly expressed that the programs were very worthwhile and had a positive impact on all involved. Furthermore, this study was able to quantify these results, reinforcing the qualitative and anecdotal feedback that volunteers have often received.

The study results also demonstrate that baseball is a strong topic for reminiscence that is especially meaningful for the current generation of participants and their care partners. Born mostly in the 1940s and 1950s, they have deep and varied memories of playing, watching, listening to, and reading about baseball during the sport’s peak as the national pastime.

The study results identified issues for further consideration by program leaders. Most frequently mentioned were:

• Resuming in-person vs. continuing online programs post-pandemic. Most respondents indicate a desire to return to in-person meetings due to added benefits of being able to interact in person. However, there are some distinct advantages for care partners and program accessibility to meeting online.
• Frequency of program offerings. Qualitative feedback suggests that participants and care partners would like more frequent programs. There was no sentiment expressed for less-frequent scheduling.
• Need for more female volunteers. Due to the large percentage of female care partners, more female volunteers would help further improve program quality and inclusiveness.
• Value of singing within online programs. Music and singing are valuable components for reminiscence programs. However, the latency inherent with Zoom sessions makes this problematic for online offerings. A solution is needed.
• Set expectations for the proper level of participation for care partners. Some care partners are concerned about participating too much and taking away sharing opportunities from participants.

The data analyses suggest several topics for future study:

• Conduct a controlled, longitudinal study of a new group of participants/care partners. Such a “before and after” study would provide more data as to the correlation of respondents’ quality of life with their assessment of the value of baseball reminiscence. Due to the pandemic and staffing turnover at partner organizations, we were not able to do this during the Phase 1 effort.
• Seek a larger sample size from more programs nationwide. This would provide a broader look at more respondents in more varied program offerings, resulting in even more meaningful results. This should be able to be accomplished in a post-pandemic setting as baseball reminiscence programs continue to proliferate.
• Assess the value of more frequent program offerings. Explore if more-frequent attendance results in higher satisfaction and improved quality of life.

As discussed earlier, a future Phase 2 study is contemplated that can address these additional topics and more. A potential sample size of one hundred or more respondents, spread across five-to-ten programs nationwide, should be attainable goals—over the next several years—to trigger consideration for a follow-on study.

In closing, the quantitative and qualitative data from this study have clearly shown that baseball reminiscence programs positively impact the well-being of not only persons with Alzheimer’s and their care partners, but also those dealing with chronic health issues, isolation and loneliness. Baseball with its heritage as our national pastime is an excellent broad, diverse topical area that can be used to generate group sharing sessions that impact participants and their care partners in a most positive way. The study results have also highlighted important questions that could be the subject of future studies. Answers to the questions could play an important role in helping shape the future direction of the program as an expansion to a national level of involvement and impact is planned and implemented.

Finally, the data gathered and presented in this report demonstrate that these programs are worthwhile and rewarding experiences for volunteers. Coupled with the positive results for participants and care partners, a continued increase in the number and availability of baseball reminiscence offerings would be a most beneficial way for baseball fans to serve their communities.

Appendix A

Appendix B

Authors’ Note

This report is the result of the work of a project team of Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) volunteers. The study was conceived, approved, planned and executed from April 2021 to January 2022. In addition to the authors, significant contributions were made in project planning and analysis by Joe Shaw, Jeff Hubbard, Linda Cely, Jerald Thomas, Rob Sheinkopf, and Tad Myre. Furthermore, Jeff Hubbard, Jim Kenton, and Jon Leonoudakis all played key roles in coordinating with local partner organizations, participants, and care partners to conduct interviews and gather volunteer data. The authors sincerely thank all of these dedicated individuals for their efforts.

Sources

“What is Diabetes?” Accessed October 25, 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes.html.

“Neurological Disorders.” Accessed October 25, 2021: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/neurological-disorders.

Monte and Linda Cely. Baseball Memories Study Report, November 11, 2021.

Notes

1. “What is Dementia?” Accessed October 25, 2021: https://www.cdc.gov/aging/dementia/index.html. Also, per the CDC, besides age—family history, race/ethnicity, poor heart health and traumatic brain injury are factors that increase the risk for dementia. Older African Americans are twice more likely to have dementia than whites. Hispanics 1.5 times more likely to have dementia than whites.

2. “Alzheimer’ disease.” Accessed November 17, 2021: https://ww.may-oclinic.org/diseases-conditions/alzheimers-disease/symptoms-causes/syc-20350447. “Alzheimer’s disease is named for a German psychiatrist and neuropathologist named Alois Alzheimer. While conducting a postmortem in 1906, the doctor noticed abnormalities in the brain of a woman with a mysterious illness that caused memory loss, language problems, unpredictable behavior, and ultimately death. Alzheimer’s disease causes nerve cells (neurons) to stop functioning, lose their connections with other neurons, and die.” Pamela Kauffman. “What is Alzheimer’s Disease? Symptoms, Cures, Diagnosis, Treatment and Prevention.” Medically Reviewed by Sanjai Sinha, MD., February 27, 2020. Accessed November 18, 2021: https://www.everydayhealth.com/alzheimers-disease/guide.

3. Dr. Robert Butler. “Reminiscence Therapy.” Accessed November 18, 2021: https://lifebio.blogspot.com/2010/10/reminiscence-therapy-dr-robert-butler.html.

4. Laura O’Philbin, Bob Woods, Emma M. Farrell, Aimee E. Spector, Martin Orrell (2018): “Reminiscence therapy for dementia: an abridged Cochrane systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials.” Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. Accessed October 26 and November 18, 2021: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14737175.2018.1509709.

5. “Sports Reminiscence Therapy is on the Horizon.” Accessed October 26, 2021: https://kensingtonplaceredwoodcity.com/sports-reminiscence-therapy. Currently, Scotland has over 300 reminiscence programs nationally, covering multiple popular sports such as soccer, golf, rugby and shinty, including popular culture topics such as music and cinema memories.

6. Jeff Hubbard, Ed.D., Linda Cely, R.N., Monte Cely, M.Sc. “Proposal: Baseball Reminiscence Research Study. Version 1, January 7, 2021, Version 2, January 21, 2021.”

7. BasebALZ—A Baseball Reminiscence Program; YouTube Accessed December 10, 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l6YDWsbcyc.

8. About BasebALZ —Society for American Baseball Research, Rogers Hornsby Chapter (sabrhornsby.org). Accessed December 10, 2021: www.sabrhornsby.org/about-basebalz.

9. About BasebALZ—Society for American Baseball Research, Rogers Hornsby Chapter (sabrhornsby.org). Accessed December 10, 2021.

10. Anne Oh. Alzheimer’s Los Angeles. Letter of Recommendation. December 14, 2020.

11. Anne Oh BasebALZ testimonial. Accessed December 10, 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlpmzkzWuPA.

12. Jeff Hubbard. Baseball Memories Interviews, number 9, Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, July 20–21, 2021.

13. Jeff Hubbard. Baseball Memories Interviews, number 16, Alzheimer’s Los Angeles, July 20–21, 2021.

14. Jon Leonoudakis. Baseball Memories Interview. West Los Angeles Veteran’s Administration Home for the Heroes, October 12, 2021.

15. Jon Leonoudakis. Baseball Memories Interview, October 12, 2021.

16. Leah Willingham. Associated Press. “For 112-year-old veteran’s daughter, care is a labor of love.” Miami Herald, October 31, 2021, Extra, Nation, 11. Caregivers are described as a family member or compensated helper that regularly looks after an infirmed, elderly or disabled person. In states like New York, residents can be compensated as family caregivers, if they meet the necessary requirements.

17. Monte Cely and Joe Shaw. Baseball Reminiscence Chartered Community, May 27, 2021.

18. Cheryl Wingbermuehle, et.al. “Baseball reminiscence league: a model for supporting persons with dementia,” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 2014. Nina Tumosa. “Baseball Reminiscence Therapy of Cognitively Impaired Veterans,” Federal Practitioner, 2015.

19. Brent Hawkins, et.al. “Creating Football Memories Teams: Development and Evaluation of a Football-Themed Reminiscence Therapy Program,” Therapeutic Recreation Journal, Vol. LIV, No.1, 32–47, 2020.

20. Bowling, Ann, et.al. “Quality of life in dementia: a systematically conducted narrative review of dementia-specific measurement scales,” Aging and Mental Health, 2014.

“At some point in the 1880s,” says John Thorn, MLB’s official historian, “.300 came to be seen as a good barometer of batting skill, as no National League club had batted .300 between 1877 and 1892. The .300 mark survived as a benchmark for good hitters even after the 1894 campaign when NL hitters averaged .309.”1 Nowadays, traditional batting average is not viewed as a strong measure of offensive skill by baseball analysts, but remains a meaningful benchmark for the players themselves.2

The high regard players have for batting .300 has been demonstrated throughout major-league history by players prematurely ending their seasons to preserve their .300 batting averages. During the past 103 major-league seasons, 129 players chose to not play in their team’s final game of the season—or exited the game early—to avoid jeopardizing the coveted .300 mark.3

Among these are 16 Hall of Famers, including Hank Aaron, Ken Griffey Jr., Vladimir Guerrero, Reggie Jackson, Derek Jeter, and David Ortiz. The most recent player to join the “Did Not Play .300 Hitters Fraternity” was Jose Altuve of the 2022 Astros, who, after exiting Houston’s penultimate game early and before sitting out their final game, said, “Obviously it means a lot. I’m just happy because it’s a big number. Hitting .300 means you’re getting on base and helping your team and, in the end, that’s what you play for.”4

Since batting .300 for a single season has remained a significant accomplishment for more than 140 years, achieving a .300 batting average over the course of a career is even more prestigious. Considering the players who played in any seasons during the period from 1920 (the first year of the “live ball” era) through 2022, there are 117 members (with at least 1500 hits) in the Career .300 Hitters Club, including four who were active in 2022—Miguel Cabrera (.308), Altuve (.307), Mike Trout (.303), and Robinson Cano (.301).

Standing outside the clubhouse with lifetime batting averages less than .300 and at least 1500 hits are 445 players, including 18 who played in the 2022 season. Among the outsiders is Mickey Mantle, who expressed the following: “My biggest regret was letting my lifetime [batting] average drop below .300. I always felt I was a .300 hitter, and if I could change one thing, that would be it.”5 As a former member of the Club, The Mick’s relevant batting stats are excellent. The owner of nine full-season .300s, he was a Club member for nearly eight continuous years, from August 20, 1960 (when he collected his 1500th hit), through July 27, 1968, when his 0-for-4 in the first game of the July 28 doubleheader irretrievably reduced his career batting average to a sub-.300.

So, it’s not at all surprising that Mantle also said, “But, god-damn, to think you’re a .300 hitter and you end up at .237 in your last season, then find yourself looking at a .298 average—it made me want to cry.”6 But it seems appropriate to ask, “Does Mantle deserve Emeritus Member status in the Career .300 Hitters Club?” as well as, “Which other former members of the Career .300 Hitters Club should be recognized as Emeritus Members?”

To answer these questions, one first needs to establish the criteria for Emeritus Member status. This, of course, is subjective. There are three fundamental attributes that each Club member has:

(1) A career .300 batting average

(2) Multiple .300 seasons

(3) Sustained .300 average over many seasons (and enough .300+ seasons with high enough average to offset the sub-.300 seasons)

Tables 1A and 1B provide the pertinent information for Club members with career batting averages from .303 to .300. Examination of Tables 1A and 1B reveals the following median values for this select group of Club members:

(a) 2100 career hits

(b) 6 season-ending batting averages of at least .300 with at least 1500 hits

(c) 8 full-season .300 batting averages

Thus, it seems reasonable to set the criteria for Emeritus Member status to these median values. Also important to attain Emeritus Member status, the former Club member should have a lifetime batting average close to .300—such as .299 or .298.

RESEARCH PROCEDURE

Using the Baseball-Reference Stathead search engine, I first generated season-by-season lists of players who had a batting average of at least .300 with at least 400 at bats. Next, using the Baseball-Reference “Advanced Stats” tool, I checked the “Cumulative Batting” table for each player on the list to ascertain the seasons when the player had a career batting average of at least .300 with at least 1500 hits. In addition, for players with at least 1500 hits and career batting averages between .295 and .299, I used Retrosheet’s Daily files to ascertain if the player had an interim career batting average of at least .300 at some point in the season. Tables 2–7 collect the pertinent information.

RESULTS

Adhering to criteria specified above, I determined that there are two players who deserve the honor of being Emeritus Members of the Career .300 Hitters Club. A convenient way to present the results is to provide lists of all the former members of the Club according to their career batting averages and highlight the Emeritus Members. Let’s begin with those who finished with a career batting average of .299—just one point shy of the threshold for active membership in the Club.

A. Former Club Members with .299 Career Batting Averages

There have been nine players who played during the 1920–2022 period and achieved a career batting average of .299 with at least 1500 hits. Table 2 presents pertinent information for these players, each of whom is a former Club member. Only one of these players attained Emeritus Member status.

Minnie Miñoso is the only .299 former Club member with at least 2,100 hits, at least six season-ending .300s with at least 1500 hits, and at least eight full-season .300 batting averages. Thus he deserves Emeritus Member status in the Career .300 Hitters Club.

His story is especially interesting—it has two beginnings. After playing in the Negro National League during the 1946–48 seasons, he made his American League debut with Cleveland on April 19, 1949. After playing the bulk of the 1949 campaign and all of the 1950 season with San Diego (Cleveland’s AAA farm club), Miñoso returned to the big leagues in 1951 and remained there through mid-July 1964. He played for four teams and fashioned eight .300s—ChiSox (6), Cleveland (2),Cardinals (0), Washington (0).

He first joined the Club with the 1960 White Sox, with whom he batted .311. He was with the 1963 Senators (with whom he batted .229) when he first exited the Club. Then, on April 8, 1964, Miñoso was signed as a free agent by the White Sox, with whom he played 30 games (27 as a pinch hitter), compiling a .226 batting average, which reduced his lifetime AL/NL batting average to .29868. That appeared to be the end of his big league career.

However, in an effort to achieve the feat of having played in the major leagues for four decades, Miñoso came back—with the Chicago White Sox—for 3 games in September 1976, in which he went 1-for-8, which further lowered his lifetime AL/NL batting average to .29846. His major league career was, apparently, complete. But, then in October 1980, Miñoso extended his career to five decades by playing in two games for the White Sox, going hitless in two at bats. That appeared, again, to be the end giving him a final AL/NL career batting average of .29837. Miñoso passed away March 1, 2015.

Five years and nine months later, on December 16, 2020, MLB issued this press release: “Commissioner of Baseball Robert D. Manfred, Jr. announced today that Major League Baseball is correcting a longtime oversight in the game’s history by officially elevating the Negro Leagues to ‘Major League’ status.”7

This blockbuster decree had a profound effect on Miñoso’s career batting performance—it gave him a new staring point. During his three years in the Negro National League (1946–48) he had compiled a composite batting average of .313 (150-for-480); he had assembled .356 and .344 batting averages in 1947 and 1948, respectively.

Including his NNL stats means that Miñoso actually joined the Career .300 Hitters Club in 1958 and remained a member through the 1964 season—his (revised) career batting average to that point being .29962. Thus, it was not until his venture to be a four-decade player that he was expelled from the Club. Miñoso’s final final-career batting average (assuming no further changes to his official major league record) is .29933. He truly is an Emeritus Member of the esteemed Career .300 Hitters Club.

B. Former Club Members with .298 Career Batting Averages

Table 3 presents the pertinent information for former Club members with lifetime .298 batting averages. Only one player assembled the stats commensurate with Emeritus Member status.

Mickey Mantle, as shown in Table 3, rightfully deserves the honor of being an Emeritus Member in the esteemed Career .300 Hitters Club. As was the case for several other former Club members, The Mick played for “one more season” (1968) which turned out to be his expulsion season from the Club. At the conclusion of the 1967 season (in which he had batted a career low .245), Mantle’s lifetime batting average stood at .302. And, with his Yankees team having finished last in 1966 and next-to-last in 1967, it might have been a good time for Mantle to hang up his spikes.

However, going into the 1968 season, Mantle had slugged 518 home runs in his career—only three homers fewer than the 521 that Ted Williams had collected and 16 shy of the 534 round trippers amassed by Jimmie Foxx. So, with the carrot of surpassing both Williams and Foxx, Mantle played that “one more season.” Unfortunately, while he did hit 18 homers, giving him a career total of 536 (which, at the time, ranked third all-time, behind Babe Ruth’s 714 and Willie Mays’s 587), he batted just .237, which lowered his career batting average to .298, which, as he would later say, “That was definitely the biggest regret of my career. I had always taken great pride in hitting .300, and I wanted to finish with a .300 average.”8

Another .299 former Club member just missed the threshold for Emeritus Member status—Julio Franco. He had seven full-season .300s, one less than the necessary eight. A few other former Club members also came close to meeting the requirements for Emeritus Member status; each missed because his lifetime batting average was .297 or lower. Tables 4–7 provide the pertinent information for them.

C. Former Club Members with .297 Career Batting Averages

Table 4 (below) lists the eleven former members of the Career .300 Hitters Club who each ended up with a lifetime .297 batting average. Only one of them came close to Emeritus Member status.

Al Kaline had a perspective antithetical to Mantle’s regarding surrendering a lifetime .300 batting average. In a pre-1967 season newspaper article Kaline was quoted as saying, “I hope I can help the team by hitting .300. This is tough to do. It’s getting tougher.”9 Going into the 1967 campaign, Kaline had failed to hit .300 in each of the previous three seasons, causing his career batting average to drop from .309 to .304.

As the 1967 season unfolded, Kaline did achieve his pre-season hope by hitting .308. It turned out to be his last full-season .300 campaign. After four more sub-.300 seasons, Kaline found his career average at .300 (actually .30045). In a pre-1972 season interview, when asked if he thought he could “hold it there,” Kaline responded—“Some great hitters in the game finished up not hitting .300. I’d like to stay up there and I think I can.”10 Then, after having produced a .313 batting average in 1972 (87 hits in 278 at bats), which nudged his career average up to .301, Kaline said this going into the 1973 season: “The only personal goal I really have is to stick around long enough to get 3000 hits. Staying above .300 for a career isn’t really that important because too many good players in the past haven’t.”11

In 1973, Kaline compiled a dismal .255 batting average, which dropped his career average to .299 (.29933). Going into the 1974 campaign, Kaline still needed 139 hits to reach the 3000 hits plateau. By season’s end, while he had picked up the hits needed to join the 3000 career hits club, his average was an unimpressive .262, which afforded him a career .297 batting average.

D. Former Club Members with .296 Career Batting Averages

As shown in Table 5, seven former members of the Career .300 Hitters Club finished their major-league careers with .296 batting averages. Two of those former members came close to Emeritus Member status— Ivan Rodriguez and Albert Pujols. Here’s what Pujols opined in May, 2019, a little over a year before he surrendered his lifetime .300 (July 25, 2020): “Definitely!” Pujols exclaimed when asked if .300 meant something to him. “It’s very special to be able to hit .300 in this game, even in the course of a year. It’s not easy. To hit .300 in this game, it’s pretty special. If someone doesn’t care about it, they’re crazy. It’s something they should focus on all the time.”12 It is noted that, thanks to having solid .300s in each of his first ten seasons (2001–10), Pujols had compiled a robust .331 career average at that point. He did not reach .300 in any of his twelve subsequent campaigns (2011–22). In six of those seasons he fashioned sub-.250 batting averages; his composite batting average was nothing-to-brag-about at .261.

E. Former Members with .295 Career Batting Averages

Eight former Club members had lifetime .295 batting averages; see Table 6. Alex Rodriguez had a .299 career batting average after the 2013 season. He was then suspended for the entire 2014 campaign. Had he been suspended for life he would have qualified for Emeritus Member status. He then batted .250 in 2015 and a Mendoza-line .200 in 2016, which precipitated his release (and retirement) on August 13. His career batting average had deteriorated to .295 by then.

F. Former Members with Career .294 Batting Averages or Lower

As shown in Table 7, fifteen former members of the Career .300 Hitters Club ended up with batting averages of .294 or lower. Of these, only Frank Robinson came close to attaining Emeritus Member status.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Only two former members of the prestigious Career .300 Hitters Club earned recognition as Emeritus Members—Minnie Miñoso (.299) and Mickey Mantle (.298)—based on the criteria established in accordance with the batting statistics of several current members of the Club (Tables 1A and 1B). Six other former members missed out on Emeritus status as a consequence of their lifetime batting averages being less than .298. The bottom line is this: Even though a .300 batting average is a somewhat arbitrary threshold (a round number) and in spite of batting average having been proven to be not the best measure of a hitter’s contributions to his team’s offense, a .300 batting average is nonetheless an achievement that does carry historical significance and is still highly regarded today. Miñoso and Mantle truly are Emeritus Members of the venerable Career .300 Hitters Club.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is a pleasure to acknowledge Baseball-Reference and Retrosheet for their baseball-research-enabling websites. I also wish to express my gratitude to the following for their very insightful and constructive comments, suggestions, and guidance: the anonymous reviewers of the submitted manuscript, as well as editor Cecilia Tan, Gary Stone, Patrick Todgham, and Jeff Robbins.

NOTES

1. Sam Miller, “What is the new .300? How to read a 21st century baseball card,” ESPN.com, April 18, 2017 (accessed February 15, 2021).

2. John Thorn and Pete Palmer with David Reuther, The Hidden Game of Baseball, (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1984), in particular chapter 2, “What’s Wrong with Traditional Baseball Statistics?;” Keith Law, Smart Baseball, (New York: William Morrow, HarperCollins Publishers, 2017), in particular, chapter 1 “Below Average: The Fundamental Flaws of Batting Average;” Anthony Castrovince, A Fan’s Guide to Baseball Analytics, (New York: Sports Publishing, Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., 2020), see page 9: “Average? More Like Below Average!”

3. Herm Krabbenhoft, “Players Who Achieved a .300 Batting Average by NOT Playing,” SABR Baseball Records Committee newsletter, Fall 2022.

4. Chandler Rome, “Altuve finishes with magic .300,” Houston Chronicle, October 6, 2022, C5.

5. Bill Chuck, “Nine Almost .300 Averages to Know,” The New York Times, March 1, 2010, bats.blogs.nytimes.com (accessed February 15, 2021). See also, quotefancy.com (accessed February 15, 2021).

6. Sam Miller, “What is the new .300? How to read a 21st century baseball card,” ESPN.com, April 18, 2017 (accessed February 15, 2021). See also: Harold Friend, “Ralph Houk’s Advice Helped Lead to Mickey Mantle’s Greatest Regret,” bleacherreport.com, November 3, 2011 (accessed January 25, 2021): “Mickey once told his friend Tom Molito…that his greatest baseball regret was not finishing with a .300 career average.”

7. “MLB officially designates the Negro Leagues as Major League,” mlb.com/press-release/press-release-mlb-officially-designates-the-negro-leagues-as-major-league, December 16, 2020 (accessed October 13, 2022).

8. Mickey Mantle with Herb Gluck, The Mick, (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1985).

9. Al Kaline, “Kaline calls spring camp best ever,” Detroit News Baseball Guide, April 12, 1967,8H.

10. “Good spring gives Tigers bounce, Kaline finds,” The Detroit News Sports Quiz, Detroit News Baseball Guide, April 4, 1972, 3E.

11. Dan Ewald, “Opener still thrills Kaline,” Detroit News Baseball Guide, April 6, 1973, 4S.

12. Bradford Doolittle, “Is the .300 hitter a thing of the past?,” ESPN.com, May 16, 2019 (accessed February 16, 2021).

But was this really the first All-Star team—or just hype and hoopla to raise bidding?

The first official All-Star Game, American versus National League, was in 1933.2 But an earlier unofficial all-star game was the Addie Joss Benefit Game on July 24, 1911, when an American League All-Star team beat the Cleveland Naps, 5–3, and raised $12,914 for the widow and children of Nap’s pitcher Joss, who had died months before of tubercular meningitis at age 31.

Baseball Almanac calls the 1911 Joss Benefit Game the “first ‘All-Star’ game in Major League history.”3 The National Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown tags it “the first game of its kind.”4 SABR member John Husman simply notes: “The game demonstrated the public appetite for an all-star game—an appetite that would not be sated for another 22 years.”5

But the photograph taken in October 1910 documents an event ten months earlier, when an American League All-Star team played the American League Champion Philadelphia Athletics in a five-game series intended to keep the A’s sharp before the World Series, a week away.

And, so, if an All-Star Game must be, like the Joss game, nine innings, with at least one team having a mix of either American League or National League stars—this game happened earlier.6,7 Also, if the starting point must be 1901, when the American League joined the National as a major league, then we must include the barnstorming games in which a team of American League All-Stars played a team of National League All-Stars, for example October 17, 1902, in Iowa, and October 19 and 20 in Omaha.8

Although the marketing claims of the auction house turn out to be exaggerated, the existence of the series was unique in other aspects and notably included nine future Hall of Famers. A scheduling quirk created the opportunity for these games. To capitalize on Columbus Day, the National League in 1910 finished a week later than the American League. In fact, the Athletics finished on October 6, while the National champion Chicago Cubs played on until October 15. The A’s would have 11 idle days before the World Series began on October 17. To keep his team sharp, manager Connie Mack, “The Tall Tactician,” scheduled a series against the All-Stars.

The series came about during a “casual conversation” between Mack and McAleer earlier in the season.9 “Mack pointed out it would be a hardship for his team to be idle a week and then hope to be on edge for the big games with the Cubs.”10 Furthermore, Mack emphasized, “Games against minor league teams would be useless for what we needed were contests with powerful opponents.”11

McAleer agreed to assemble and manage a team (dubbed “All-Stars” or “McAleer’s All-Stars”). In addition to the four Hall of Famers and Lord—the “brainy” Bates College third baseman who would be named White Sox captain days later12—the team included southpaw Doc White (Chi); catchers Gabby Street (Wash) and Billy Sullivan (Chi); infielders Jake Stahl (Bos), George McBride, Kid Elberfeld and Bill Cunningham (all Wash); outfielders Germany Schaefer and Clyde “Deerfoot” Milan (Wash).13 Lord, himself, as Red Sox captain in 1909, had batted fourth in the league in average at .315, with 36 stolen bases. In 1911, as White Sox captain, he would do even better: .321 with 43 steals.

“This is the greatest team ever got together,” McAleer crowed.14 “Every Player Is a Star,” trumpeted a headline.15 And if all that was not enough, “We have the only two catchers that caught a ball from on (top of) the Washington Monument…Street and myself,” Sullivan added immodestly.16

“If Connie Mack’s men can show any decisive superiority over this outfit, they will beat the Cubs to a moral certainty,” a columnist noted.17 But he had his doubts: “If there is any advantage in a season of harmonious teamwork, the Athletics have that, the sole particular in which they seem to have anything on the foe.”18

But no one considered a downside to the All-Star Series. What if the Athletics got drubbed or injured? Would their World Series chances then suffer against the Cubs, winners of 104 games, under playing manager Frank Chance? No one was asking those questions.

A few American League stars were missing. A City Series in New York between the Highlanders (AL) and Giants (NL), and one in Ohio between Cleveland (AL) and Cincinnati (NL), had syphoned off Nap Lajoie, Addie Joss, and young Shoeless Joe Jackson. Notwith-standing these omissions, the Stars comprised “one of the most powerful aggregates ever assembled on one club.”19 Four games were slated for Shibe Park in Philadelphia, and one in American League Park in Washington.20 In short, five games on consecutive days with admissions split 50/50 between both teams.

Days before, a baseball controversy erupted. Before the season, the Chalmers Automobile Company had announced it would award cars to batting champions in both leagues. Skipping the final two games against the Chicago White Sox with a comfortable cushion, Cobb finished at .385. But as Cobb sat, Lajoie went 8-for-8 on the last day in a St. Louis double-header—blurring their final averages to statistical confusion: .384944 (Cobb) to .384084 (Lajoie).21

Word spread quickly that Browns manager Jack O’Connor had positioned his third baseman on the outfield grass, allowing Lajoie to bunt six times, and thwart the unpopular Cobb’s quest for the title. O’Connor defended the tactic crudely: “Now, really, you never heard of any infielder playing in for that big frog-eater (French Canadian), did you?”22 Third baseman John Corriden, accused of “assisting materially in fattening Lajoie’s average,”23 insisted he played back in mortal fear of “a broken nose or lost teeth,”24 adding dramatically, “I want to remain in baseball for some years. I was not going to get killed playing in for Lajoie.”25

Meanwhile, Cobb had other car problems, missing the All-Star Series opener on Tuesday, October 11. “Ty Cobb was automobiling from Detroit to Philadelphia but he met up with an accident to his machine near Kingston, New York, which prevented him from reaching Philadelphia in time to get to the ballpark.”26

Without Cobb, the All-Stars still pounded 15 hits to win, 8–3, before 5000 fans. Everyone in the lineup, except Germany Schaefer, Cobb’s replacement, had a hit. Mack split the pitching evenly among his three aces Chief Bender (23–5 in 1910), Eddie Plank (16–10), and “Colby Jack” Coombs (31–9). The All-Stars countered with Walter Johnson (25–17, 313 strikeouts) who had eight strikeouts and allowed seven hits. The fleet-footed Lord rapped a single off Coombs and scored in a three-run seventh that sealed the win.27

But even in defeat, scribes lauded Mack’s philosophy behind the series: “If our champions put in the rest of the week slamming with pitchers like Walter Johnson and Big Ed Walsh, their batting eyes ought to get all the tuning up that the average batting eye can stand at one dose, and those Cubs pitchers are apt to think they have strayed into the cyclone belt when they butt into us in the big cream next week.”28

For Philadelphia, Home Run Baker (.283), Stuffy McInnis (.301) and 37-year-old Harry Davis (.248) each banged out two hits. That evening, B.F. Keith’s Theatre hosted both teams at a special “Baseball Night.”29

Next day, newly arrived Cobb and Big Ed Walsh (18–20, 258 strikeouts) led the All-Stars to a 5–1 win before only 2800 fans. “Ty Cobb was the bright and shining star today, gathering three hits, two of which were doubles. He ran the bases like a whirlwind, giving one of the greatest exhibitions we ever saw.”30 Again, Mack divided the pitching among his aces— Bender allowing no runs, Plank three and Coombs two. “Bender was near his best form…with a couple days rest he should be in championship form.”31

The Athletics’ run came on a ninth inning triple by Collins (.324), who scored on a grounder. Baker added 2 more hits. But the loss came at a cost. Outfielder Rube Oldring sprained his knee on a Speaker liner lost in the sun. Oldring, top 10 in the league in batting average (.308), hits (168), doubles (27), triples (14), and homers (4), was lost for the World Series. The savants and cracker barrel philosophers chimed in: “Again it was shown today that an all star team of brains will defeat any average team, regardless of the length of time the stars have been playing together.” 32

After the game, Cobb challenged Collins and “Deerfoot” Milan to a race around the bases to crown the league’s fastest man. “Cobb declared he would make his opponents look like a canceled postage stamp.”33 It is no surprise that Cobb, who liked to win, did not extend the challenge to Lord, once the leader of Boston’s “Speed Boys,” timed months before in 3.2 seconds from home to first, to win a skills competition on “Doc” Powers Day.34

Before 3500 fans at Shibe Park, the Stars won their third straight, 6–2, behind Doc White (15–13), who pitched a shutout through eight innings. Mack split the pitching this time with Bender, Coombs, and Harry Krause (6-6) now replacing Plank. Lord, “the best third sacker of Ban Johnson’s (American League) organization,”35 contributed a single, a sacrifice, and a double play in the field. With Philadelphia losing three straight, an injury to Oldring, and with Plank now fading, Mack might well have doubted himself as the team boarded the train to Washington for game four.36

Off the field, heated rhetoric surrounded the batting title fiasco. One headline blared: “Lajoie Shooed in, Ty Cobb is Yellow.”37 The story claimed Cobb “quit cold” after he thought he had the automobile won. After driving a ball to Chicago outfielder Bobby Messenger, Lord’s former Bates College teammate, who slipped and fell in mud, Cobb had checked with the official scorers.38 “When he found out that he had been given a hit, he smiled and started to pack his grip.”39 A scribe declared: “Ty Cobb has a yellow streak as broad as his back.”40

Game four, before a crowd of 8000 in Washington, was a showcase for Johnson, who led the All-Stars to a 4–1 win. Cobb, catching Johnson in warm-ups, unfurled his usual bravado: “You see how good the Athletics look, don’t you? Well, when we get out there we will look just about 50 percent better; they haven’t a chance in the world of beating us.”41 He was right.

A fourth straight Philadelphia loss was concerning: “…[T]he showing of the Athletics was such to make the followers of the American League champions have grave fears as to the outcome of the world series…all in all the Athletics did not resemble a championship team in any way, shape or form.”42 Meanwhile, the Cubs, with 104 wins, were taking three of four from the Cardinals.

In Philadelphia, the anxiety was mounting. Had “The Tall Tactician” outsmarted himself with this maneuver? Was the All-Star series backfiring and demoralizing the AL Champs? Pundits thought so: “Mack’s players seem to be awe-stricken at the strength of their opponents.”43

A photo of the All-Star team appeared next day with the caption: “THE ESTIMATED VALUE OF THIS TEAM IS $286,000.”44 This newspaper image turned out to be the Harry Lord Auction Photo that sold for $6,063 in 2018. A headline declared that the Series was now exploding in Mack’s face: “Poor Showing of Mack’s Team Strengthens Cub’s Chances in World Series—Public Sentiment Appears to be with Cubs.”45

In Washington, the game’s subplot had been how Johnson would fare behind a talented team. In his four seasons, the “Senators” had finished last or next to it every time. “People…have been wont to wonder how the city’s favorite slinger, Johnson, would finish a season if backed by a (strong) team…”46 Winning his second game in the All-Star Series, “Johnson was invincible until the ninth, when he let down and doubles by Collins and Baker netted a run.”47 Mack rested his aces and split the pitching chores with Cy Morgan (18–12) and spitballer Jimmy Dygert (4–4).

The Athletics, at last, almost mercifully, won the finale in Philadelphia on Saturday, 3–0, with Bender, Plank, and Coombs combining for a three-hitter. “Big” Ed Walsh scattered five hits in defeat, but Mainer Harry Lord skipped the last game to appear in an exhibition between his White Sox and minor leaguers in Portland.48 He had just been named captain of Chicago for the 1911 season.49

And so, on a high note, Philadelphia had Sunday off before the World Series started Monday. The Cubs, who beat St. Louis that Saturday, boarded a special 7:30 train for Philadelphia, leaving Union Station “as the second section of the Pennsylvania limited” along with most wives and “the scribes who are lucky or unlucky enough to draw the assignment.”50

Let history show that Philadelphia won the 1910 World Series four games to one, but without Oldring and Plank, before crowds averaging 25,000, with Coombs winning three and Collins and outfielder Danny Murphy leading the attack.51 At a special presentation before the second game, Cobb and Lajoie each were awarded Chalmers automobiles, ending the bitter batting controversy.52

Despite the four humbling losses (combined score 23–7) to the greatest collection of baseball talent ever assembled, Mack so liked the benefits of the All-Star Series that he used it again the following season. And the Athletics then won the 1911 World Series, this time against the New York Giants, four games to two.

Harry Lord left Chicago in 1914 in a salary dispute, managed in the Federal League for a Buffalo team known as “Harry Lord’s Fighting Federal League Team,” returned to Maine, played in the Eastern League, coached Bates College in 1918 during World War I, ran a coal and grocery business in Portland, served in the legislature, and died in 1948, at age 66. After his grandson died in 2018, his widow put some dusty memorabilia up for auction—including a long-forgotten photo of the “First Ever All-Star Game” in 1910.53

Dedication

This piece is dedicated to my late brother Michael Muldoon, a 35-year sports writer for the Lawrence (MA) Eagle-Tribune, who always teased me about my love of old baseball—especially Rube Waddell and Ossee Schreckengost and the animal crackers in bed.

Sources

In addition to cited sources, the author used Baseball-Reference.com and an online Bates College News article he wrote about Harry Lord ’08 (https://www.bates.edu/news/2020/10/20/meet-headstrong-harry-lord-bates-lord-of-the-baseball-diamond/)

Notes

1. David Sharp, ”Red Sox old-timer’s memorabilia going up for sale,” Associated Press, August 12, 2018. https://apnews.com/article/37b9f589730149deb82fea44d9fdb49a The auction photo originally appeared in the Washington Star, October 15, 1910: 8.

2. Lyle Spatz, “July 6, 1933: A Dream Realized: Comiskey Park hosts first All-2 Star Game; Babe Ruth homers,” SABR Games Project: https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/july-6-1933-a-dream-realized.

3. “Addie Joss All Star Game,” Baseball Almanac: https://www.baseballalmanac.com/tsn/addie_joss_benefit_game.shtml.

4. Addie Joss, National Baseball Hall of Fame website: https://baseballhall.org/hall-of-famers/joss-addie.

5. John R. Husman, “Addie Joss Day: An All-Star Celebration,” from Baseball in Cleveland (SABR, 1990): https://sabr.org/journal/article/addie-joss-day-an-all-star-celebration/.

6. On June 30, 1910, a six-inning game and skills competition was held at 6 Shibe Park for Doc Powers, who had died on April 26, 1909. The game was described as “horse play” between an “All-American” team and Philadelphia. See Robert D. Warrington, “A Ballpark Opens and A Ballplayer Dies: The Converging Fates of Shibe Park and Doc Powers,” Baseball Research Journal, Fall 2014: https://sabr.org/journal/article/a-ballpark-opens-and-a-ballplayer-dies-the-converging-fates-of-shibe-park-and-doc-powers.

7. John Thorn points to the 3 fashion Race Course Contests of 1858 when “picked nines” from New York played against stars from Brooklyn as the first All-Star game. But this fails our definition because the players were not from the American or National League. Thorn also cites a 1903 game in the Class D Hudson River League: https://ourgame.mlblogs.com/baseballs-first-all-star-game-4fcda47ecab2.

8. Addie Joss and Jack Chesbro were the starting pitchers in the Iowa contest, part of a midwestern barnstorming tour. “Rain Spoils Ball Game,” Marshalltown (Iowa) Evening Times-Republican, October, 18, 1902, 7. See also “All Star Base Ball Teams,” Omaha Daily Bee, October 18, 1902, 4.

9. “All-Star Team to Keep Athletics on Edge for Bubs,” Pensacola (Florida) News Journal, October 8, 1910: 2.

10. “All-Star Team to Keep Athletics on Edge.”

11. “All-Star Team to Keep Athletics on Edge.”

12. “Harry Lord To Be Manager,” Birmingham Times, September 15, 1911: 6.

13. “Harry Lord Captain,” Lewiston Sun-Journal, October 18, 1910: 7.

14. Doc White, “Athletics Fall Before Walsh,” Chicago Tribune, October 13, 1910: 19.

15. “All-Star Team to Keep Athletics on Edge for Bubs,” Pensacola News Journal, October 8, 1910: 2.

16. J. Ed Grillo, “A’s Are Outclassed By McAleer’s All-Star Team,” Washington Star, October 15, 1910: 8.

17. “Wray’s Column,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 8, 1910: 6.

18. “Wray’s Column.”

19. ”All-Star Team to Keep Athletics on Edge.”

20. “Ty Cobb Wins Auto Prize,” Washington Herald, October 15, 1910: 11.

21. “The Buzz Car Goes To Ty Cobb,” Chanute (Kansas) Tribune, October 17, 1910: 5.

22. “What’s being said about Larry’s Hit,” Washington Herald, October 14, 1910: 8.

23. “Corriden Not To Blame,” Kansas City Times, October 15, 1910: 12.

24. “Says Corriden,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 12, 1910: 10.

25. “Says Corriden.”

26. “All-Stars 8, Athletics 3, 26 ” Boston Globe, October 12, 1910: 6.

27. In 1905, Lord played third base at Bates College, in Maine, while Coombs pitched for rival Colby. But the two never faced each other, as Lord dropped off the Bates team in June to play for a team in Portland (for pay), just days before the Colby game. History was deprived of seeing the two future major league stars battle in college. But Lord won the battle on this day!

28. Jim Nasium, “Pick of A.L. Teams Clean Up Mackies,” Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct 12, 1910: 10.

29. “Champions Guests at Keiths,” Philadelphia Inquirer, October 12, 1910: 10.

30. Doc White, “Athletics Fall Before Walsh,” Chicago Tribune, October 13, 1910: 19.

31. White, “Athletics Fall Before Walsh.”

32. White, “Athletics Fall Before Walsh.”

33. White, “Athletics Fall Before Walsh.”

34. “Benefit Contest Draws Thousands,” Washington Herald, July 1, 1910: 8 Note: “Doc” Powers Day included several skills competitions, and a six-inning exhibition game that could perhaps stake a small claim as an early All-Star game, but was only 6 innings and described as “horseplay.”

35. “Cobb Is Most Valuable Player in Baseball,” Vancouver Daily World, October 15, 1910: 15.

36. Plank missed the Series with a sore arm. Jan Finkel, “Eddie Plank,” SABR BioProject, https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/eddie-plank/.

37. “Lajoie Shooed in, Ty Cobb is Yellow,” Washington Star, October 12, 1910: 12.

38. Messenger attended Bates College with Harry Lord in 1904–05, and the small college had two future major leaguers in the same football backfield. Both men were speedsters in the majors, with Lord winning a speed competition in 3.2 seconds from home to first (bunting), and Messenger winning a 100-yard dash in 11 seconds at Comiskey Park in 1911. Bates’ 1904 record was 5–3–1, including an 11–0 loss to Harvard, and a 0–0 tie with Holy Cross with future Red Sox player (and Lord teammate) Bill Carrigan. Bob Muldoon, “Meet Headstrong Harry Bates,” October 20, 2020, Bates College News, Bates.edu: https://www.bates.edu/news/2020/10/20/meet-headstrongharry-lord-bates-lord-of-the-baseball-diamond.

39. “Lajoie Shooed in, Ty Cobb is Yellow,” Washington Star, October 12, 1910: 12.

40. “Lajoie Shooed in, Ty Cobb is Yellow.” (quoting John Doe in the Cleveland Press).

41. “Ty Cobb Wins Auto Prize,” Washington Herald, October 15, 1910: 11.

42. J. Ed Grillo, “A’s Are Outclassed By McAleer’s All-Star Team,” Washington Star, October 15, 1910: 8.

43. Grillo, “A’s Are Outclassed.”

44. “The Estimated Value of this team is $286,000,” Washington Star, October 15, 1910: 8.

45. “The Estimated Value of this 45 team is $286,000.”

46. Joe. S. Jackson, “Sporting Facts and Fancies,” Washington Post, October 12, 1910: 8.

47. J. Ed Grillo, “A’s Are Outclassed By McAleer’s All-Star Team,” Washington Star, October 15, 1910: 8.

48. “Many Will Go To See The Stars,” Lewiston (Maine) Sun-Journal, October 18, 1910: 10 Note: The White Sox player Bobby Messenger, of Maine and Bates, also was slated to appear.

49. “Harry Lord Captain,” Lewiston (Maine) Sun-Journal, October 18, 1910: 7.

50. “Ty Cobb Wins Auto Prize,” Washington Herald, October 15, 1910: 11.

51. Johnny Evers of the Cubs missed the World Series with a broken ankle.

52. Next season the Chalmers Automobile went to the league MVPs. John O’Connor was released as Manager of the St. Louis Browns on October 16, 1910, and never appeared in the Major Leagues again.

53. Email, October 13, 2022, from Lord’s granddaughter, Deb McCleery.

Chocolatier William Klein Sr. of Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, had a problem. The year was 1918. Soldiers were returning from the war in Europe. Klein was looking to expand to a national market for his “Lunch Bar,” a three-cent candy bar that was in direct competition with the chocolate bars produced by Milton Hershey at his factory just ten miles away. The Klein Lunch Bar would be familiar to returning soldiers, because Klein, like Hershey, had landed a contract with the armed services to include his Lunch Bars in rations distributed to soldiers overseas.1 Klein wanted to build on this familiarity and make the Lunch Bar a staple of the American home.

Like many companies of the day, Klein advertised in newspapers, but display ads were expensive and did not provide the kind of exposure that could make a product a household name. Klein—in concert with his brother and partner in the business, Frederick—decided to attract copious amounts of attention by fielding a highly competitive independent professional baseball team. They would attract the very best players by offering both a steady job in the chocolate factory and a chance to play baseball in the summer.2 In a time when even the top levels of professional baseball provided skimpy salaries and no employment beyond the summer months, the offer would prove attractive to many top-level ball players.

The scheme worked. In 1919 the Kleins fielded one of the finest independent professional baseball teams in the country.3 The team would win more than 80 percent of its games and compile a 7–4 record against major league competition. The exploits of the team were chronicled in newspapers across the country and every time the Klein Chocolate Company team was mentioned in the press, the brothers garnered plenty of publicity for their candy bars.

CANDY BARS AND BASEBALL

William and Frederick Klein were born in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, to German immigrant parents. The boys helped to support the family by selling newspapers and, during holidays, German chocolate eggs made in the family’s kitchen. Local caramel company owner Milton Hershey, a man with a lifelong fascination for the milk chocolate he had tasted at the 1893 World’s Colombian Exposition in Chicago, hired the Klein boys as apprentices. Hershey brought the boys with him when he moved his company from Lancaster to Derry Township, in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. There he built his famous chocolate factory, and there Frederick and William became his trusted assistants.4

While working for Hershey, William, a huge baseball fan, convinced his boss to sponsor a company baseball team to provide the chocolate factory workers some pleasurable recreation after long hours in the factory. William managed the team. Frederick played in the infield.5

By 1912, William and Frederick were ready to strike out on their own. They started the Klein Chocolate Company in a small shop on Market Street in nearby Elizabethtown. After about one year, with the support of investors, the Kleins had begun construction of a larger manufacturing facility.6 Also, of course, they established a company baseball team that competed against other local teams.7

By 1918, though, William Klein decided he needed not just any baseball team, but one that could win against the very best competition.8 He noted that major league teams passed right through Elizabethtown when they travelled on the Pennsylvania Railroad’s main line between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. If he could field a winning team, perhaps he could convince the major league teams to stop in Elizabethtown to play exhibitions against them, and the ensuing coverage in the press would provide a promotional boon to his fledgling company.

Klein wrote to every major league team inviting them to stop in Elizabethtown to play an exhibition game on their way through town. He promised to put the team up for the night, buy their dinners, and share the ticket profits with the visiting teams.9 At a time when many major league teams were barely breaking even financially, a chance to earn a little more money was appealing, and several teams agreed.

RECRUITING A POWERHOUSE TEAM

Klein then needed to assemble a competitive team. His first step was to hire former major league pitcher John Brackenridge, who lived in nearby Harrisburg, as manager.10 Klein told Brackenridge to recruit the best ballplayers he could find for the team. While Brackenridge combed the area, Klein set out to construct a first-class ball field on the Poplar Street grounds adjacent to his factory.11 The way the ballpark was laid out, a batter could take aim at the factory smokestacks looming in the distance. There was a large, modern grandstand, but no outfield fence. Conoy Creek, a tributary of the Susquehanna River, formed a natural outfield barrier.

Among the first players Brackenridge signed were pitcher Hank “Big Bill” Ritter, slugging first baseman Tony Walsh, catcher Irvin “Bugs” Trout, pitcher/ outfielder George Hunter, and outfielders Charles Babbington and Earl Potteiger.12 Ritter had pitched parts of four seasons in the major leagues with the Philadelphia Phillies and New York Giants and had attended both Juniata and Albright Colleges in the central Pennsylvania area. Walsh. a veteran of both the minor leagues and several local semi-pro teams, was noted for his extra-base power. Trout was an experienced backstop who had played several years with Toronto in the International League. George Hunter was a 10-year veteran of the New York State League (NYSL) and Southern Association, who had played one season with the Brooklyn Superbas (Dodgers) in the major leagues. Babbington was another veteran of the NYSL. Potteiger, from nearby Pottstown, had spent several years in the New England League.

Pitcher Walter Harned, infielders Addie Berger, Russ Wrightstone, and Glenn Killinger, and outfielders “Babe” Brown and Henry “Hinkey” Haines were soon added to the squad.13 Harned was a veteran of six seasons in the NYSL and would prove to be a key member of the Kleins pitching staff. Wrightstone was a local hitting legend who had played for other industrial teams in the area. Killinger was a student and star athlete at Penn State. Brown had been a minor leaguer 1902–04.14 Hinkey Haines was a 19-year-old collegian from Lebanon Valley College, who had interrupted his schooling to serve in the Army during the war. Other players with similar profiles would join the team from time to time as the season went on.

DOMINATING LOCAL TEAMS

The Klein Chocolate Company team played their first game against the local Ephrata team on May 25, 1919, at Ephrata. The starting lineup was Hunter in left field, Killinger at short, Wrightstone at third base, Walsh at first base, Haines in right field, Berger at second base, Brown in center field, and Trout catching. Ritter and Harned shared pitching duties. The Kleins won, 15–8. Killinger, Walsh, and Brown each had three hits.15

On Friday, May 30, the Klein Chocolate Company opened its new ballpark in Elizabethtown. The opponent was the Motive Power team, a company team from Harrisburg sponsored by the Pennsylvania Railroad. Games were played in the morning and afternoon. At the afternoon game, to celebrate the new field a flag was raised and music was provided by the local Palmyra town band.16 In these two games the Klein team gave notice that they would be a force to be reckoned with. Motive Power, recognized as one of the better teams in the area, fell by scores of 15–3 and 13–0. Killinger hit two home runs and Walsh hit one. Wrightstone, who formerly had played for Motive Power, had five hits in the doubleheader. William Klein presented Killinger and Walsh with boxes of Klein Almond Bars as rewards for their home runs. Thus began a tradition of rewarding home runs with boxes of Klein Chocolate, always dutifully reported upon in the newspapers.17

The Klein Chocolate team breezed to five more wins against local competition and then left on June 19 for a four-day road trip to see the Philadelphia A’s host the Detroit Tigers and to play games of their own in Newark, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Lancaster. The team returned home undefeated. They took down the Newark Charms Candy team, a reported professional powerhouse, 3–2.18 Their most impressive win yet was a defeat of the highly regarded Strawbridge and Clothier team in Philadelphia, 5–1, behind Ritter’s pitching and Walsh’s long three-run home run in the ninth inning. “The Strawbridge and Clothier team thought we were a bunch of rubes from upstate,” reported manager Brackenridge, “but when they saw we played big-league ball you never did see such a change in a mob of fans.”19 The Kleins finished the road trip with a win over the Eighth Ward team in Lancaster.20

The Klein team lost their first game of the season on June 26, falling to the Parkesburg Iron Works team, 6–5, in 16 innings.21 Several more easy victories over local teams followed and then on July 5, William Klein made a big announcement that received coverage in all the local papers: The Philadelphia Athletics had been engaged to play an exhibition on July 23, which would be played at Harrisburg’s Island Park to accommodate the anticipated large crowd.22

CONNIE MACK’S PHILADELPHIA A’S COME TO TOWN

Before the big game, some changes occurred to the Klein roster. First baseman Tony Walsh signed with a team in Larksville and left. Shortstop Killinger returned to Penn State. “Babe” Brown also left to play for other local teams. In response to these defections, Brackenridge signed former St. Louis Browns player Dick Kauffman, a native of nearby Lewistown, to replace Walsh. Veteran catcher/third baseman Frank Brannon, a Wilkes-Barre resident, jumped from the Shreveport team in the Texas League to replace Killinger. Bill Kay, a 41-year-old former Washington National and longtime minor leaguer, replaced Brown in the outfield. Brackenridge also signed a new pitcher from the Reading team of the Allison-Hill League, Clyde Mellinger, who had starred for the local Shippensburg College team for four years. Also new to the lineup was 39-year-old infielder Bill Cranston. Cranston, who had had a 12-year career in the minors, would become a key member of the team.

A crowd estimated at between 4,000 and 6,000 crammed every corner of the Harrisburg Athletic Club field on Island Park at 3:45 on July 23 to see Connie Mack’s Philadelphia Athletics square off against the Klein Chocolate team.23 Mack brought a team of mostly starting players with him. Stars Amos Strunk and Tillie Walker were in the outfield. Fred Thomas was at third base. Bench players like Dick Burrus and Terry Turner filled out the lineup. Regular starting catcher Cy Perkins was playing shortstop, while coach Paddy Livingston did the catching. On the mound for the A’s was Tom Rogers, who was a semi-regular part of the starting rotation.

Walter Harned pitched for Klein Chocolate. The A’s pushed across single runs in the second and seventh to lead, 2–0, going into the eighth. In the eighth inning, the Kleins got to Rogers for four runs on five consecutive hits, including a George Hunter double. Harned shut the A’s down in the ninth and the victory went to Klein Chocolate, 4–2. Harned allowed only four hits to the major leaguers, while the Klein hitters managed eight hits off Rogers. Newspapers from as far away as Pittsburgh and New York City carried reports of the surprising Klein victory.24 William Klein got publicity for his candy and Connie Mack and his A’s got roasted.25

THE RAJAH VISITS WITH HIS ST. LOUIS CARDINALS

August saw the Klein Chocolate team continue their domination of local clubs and defeat a travelling contingent, the Baltimore Dry Docks team, 5–4, before a large, enthusiastic crowd at Island Park in Harrisburg.26 On August 11, the team split a Sunday doubleheader against Ephrata, falling, 2–0, and winning, 3–2, to run their season record to 34–6.27 Meanwhile the entire region was abuzz with the news that the St. Louis Cardinals—with stars Rogers Hornsby and Jack Smith, as well as local boy Clifton Heathcote—would be coming to town to play the Klein team.28 The game was scheduled for Tuesday, August 12.

An estimated crowd of 5,000 crammed the Island Park field for the game against the Cardinals.29 Manager Branch Rickey sent out a team of mostly regular players, including Hornsby, Smith, and Heathcote, to face the Klein team, although he did start pitcher Frank Woodward in left field. Oscar Tuero was the Cardinals hurler. Mellinger started the game for the Klein team, but he did not last long. After an error by Wrightstone at third base, the Cardinals cracked out two doubles and a single, scoring three runs, and Mellinger was replaced by Harned. The Cards plated two more runs before Harned could put out the fire. Down five runs before they even came to bat, the Klein team responded by steadily eating away at the Cardinals lead, while Harned tamed the St. Louis bats. The “Chocolate Boys” scored two runs in the fourth, two in the sixth, and two more in the seventh to win the game, 6–5. They were helped along by six Cardinals errors. Wrightstone led the Klein team with three hits, while Kauffman drove in two runs.30

THE ATLANTIC CITY BACHARACH GIANTS BEAT THE KLEINS

On August 18, the Klein team was back at Island Park to play a barnstorming independent Negro team, the Bacharach Giants from Atlantic City. The Bacharach Giants featured some of the finest players in the country including pitcher Dick “Cannonball” Redding, speedster Spot Poles, slugging first baseman Ben Taylor, and shortstop/manager John Henry “Pop” Lloyd. The Kleins could manage only four hits off Redding, and fell to the visitors from Atlantic City, 2–1.31 The Bacharach Giants proved to be the toughest of opponents for the Kleins. Two weeks after this defeat, Klein Chocolate visited the Bacharach Giants in Atlantic City for a weekend series and dropped two games by the scores of 1–0 and 3–2.32 Veteran star Frank Wickware pitched the Giants to victory in the second game. It appeared that the fine Klein Chocolate team had met its match and then some against the Bacharach Giants.

THE CINCINNATI REDS AND LOCAL HERO JAKE DAUBERT PAY A VISIT

On August 29, a throng estimated at 8,000 crammed the stands and rimmed the outfield at Island Park to see the Klein Chocolate team take on the National League-leading Cincinnati Reds. The field was so packed with spectators that special ground rules needed to be instituted for the fans lining the outfield.33 Cincinnati manager Pat Moran fielded a team studded with stars, including local favorite Jake Daubert from Shamokin, Pennsylvania, Sherry Magee in left and future Hall of Famer Edd Roush in center, as well as starting third baseman Heinie Groh and right fielder Greasy Neale. Lefty Rube Bressler did the pitching. Walter Harned was on the mound for the Kleins. The Reds reached Harned for single runs in the first, third, fifth, and ninth, in part due to two errors by shortstop Frank Brannon. The Kleins were held off the board by Bressler until the ninth when they scored three runs, thanks in part to doubles by Wrightstone and Brannon, to make the game close. George Hunter had three hits for the Klein team. The final was St. Louis 4, Klein Chocolate 3.34

Mired in a team hitting slump, the Kleins lost their fourth straight game at home to a Bethlehem Steel team led by former and future Philadelphia Phillies lefthander, Stan Baumgartner, 1–0.35 The team’s hitting form returned with a string of wins against weaker local competition, however. The Lancaster News Journal noted that third baseman Russ Wrightstone was emerging as “the best slugger in this neck of the woods.”36

On September 8, the Klein team held a rematch with Connie Mack’s Athletics at Island Field. Before traveling to Harrisburg for the game, the Kleins won a morning game at home against the semi-pro Middle-town, Pennsylvania, team.37 Walter Harned was again chosen to pitch against the A’s for the “Lunch Bars.” Harned scattered nine hits and two runs in earning the easy 8–2 victory. Wrightstone contributed an inside-the-park home run. The Lancaster News Journal called the game, “too one-sided to be very interesting.”38

After the Athletics game, the Lunch Bars went on another run of victories against semi-pro teams in the region including Williamsport, Bloomsburg, Ephrata, and Nanticoke. A return match with the strong Parkesburg Iron Works nine ended in controversy. With the game being played in a steady rain in the late innings, manager Brackenridge appealed to have the game called off with his team ahead, 3–1. The Parkesburg manager refused, so Brackenridge grabbed the ball, threw it over the fence and pulled his team off the field. Two Parkesburg runners, on base at the time, came around to score. Each team then filed a final score with the newspapers, the Klein team declaring victory and the Parkesburg team calling it a draw. The Lancaster News-Journal carried both line scores.39

THE BROOKLYN ROBINS AND WASHINGTON NATIONALS FALL TO THE KLEINS

During the week of September 22, the Klein team would play four games against major-league competition and win three of them. First up were the Brooklyn “Robins,” as the team was often called in those days in deference to their revered manager Wilbert Robinson. The Robins were traveling to Philadelphia by train after defeating the National League champion Reds in Cincinnati, 3–1, on Sunday, September 21. On Monday, September 22, they stepped off the train in Elizabethtown and walked across the street to the Poplar Grounds ballpark to meet the Klein aggregation. They got back on the train a few hours later, having been handed a 2–1 defeat at the hands of the Lunch Bars. Recently signed York, Pennsylvania, native Norman Plitt pitched for the Brackenridge nine. Plitt had pitched briefly for the Brooklyn team in 1918, and he was out to show them what they were missing, as he gave up seven hits and just one seventh inning run, to a team that included future Hall of Famer Zack Wheat, and stars including Hi Myers, Ed Konetchy, and Ivy Olson. “Bugs” Trout had two hits and drove in the winning run for the Kleins.40

On September 24, the Klein bunch traveled to nearby Carlisle, Pennsylvania, to play the Washington Nationals at Dickinson College. The Nats were on their way to Boston after dropping four games to the Indians in Washington. The crowd of 3,000 that turned out included a contingent of soldiers from the Carlisle Barracks and wounded troops from World War 1 who were recovering at the base’s military hospital.41 Free Klein Almond Bars were given away to all who attended. The Kleins prevailed against Clark Griffith’s team, 4–3, behind the pitching of Walter Harned, who scattered nine hits. Washington’s future Hall-of-Fame outfielder Sam Rice had two hits, third baseman Joe Leonard had three, while their star first baseman, Joe Judge, was held hitless. Wrightstone had two hits for the Klein team, including a triple, and made a spectacular diving stop of a smash at third to save a run.42 Wrightstone’s play had attracted the attention of major league scouts and rumors appeared in the papers suggesting he would be with a major league club in the spring.43

THE BABE AND THE RED SOX DEFEATED

One day later, on September 25, the Klein Chocolate team returned to Island Park in Harrisburg to play the Boston Red Sox and their budding superstar pitcher/ outfielder, Babe Ruth. Boston manager Ed Barrow played a number of youngsters in his lineup, but Ruth started in left field, along with regulars Stuffy McInnis at first, Red Shannon at second, and Everett Scott at shortstop. “Big Bill” Ritter got the starting assignment for the Kleins and shut the big leaguers out on five hits. Klein Chocolate won the game, 4–0. Wrightstone had the big hit, a two-run triple in the eighth inning. Ruth struck out twice and flied out deep to right on a ball that was flagged down by Bill Kay. Ruth also pitched the final two innings and was charged with three earned runs.44

The Red Sox stuck around for a rematch the next day. The second game was played at Rossmere Field in Lancaster about 30 miles from Harrisburg. Future Hall of Famer Herb Pennock pitched for the Sox and newly signed right hander Art Decatur, who joined the Klein team after his season ended at Nashville in the Southern Association, took the ball for Brackenridge.45 Boston prevailed in this one as they scratched out three single runs in the first, fourth, and fifth innings. The only Klein run came in the eighth and was driven in by Wrightstone. The Klein team managed seven hits off Pennock, Wrightstone leading the way with three.46 Ruth contributed an RBI single to the Red Sox cause, but his big name and growing reputation as the greatest of all baseball players earned the Klein brothers plenty of publicity for their chocolate bars.

THE BIG TRAIN IS DERAILED

After the second Boston game, manager Brackenridge announced that a return match against the Washington Nationals had been scheduled for Island Park, and that star pitcher Walter Johnson would take the mound.47 The game, played on September 29, was designated as a special “Soldiers Day” celebration, designed “to welcome home thousands of American soldiers returning from the trenches of Europe.”48 Game day started with a parade and speeches by local politicians, including Pennsylvania Governor William Sproul. The events culminated with the raising of a massive flag at Island Field.49 A throng estimated at 10,000 people showed up for the game. The crowd was so large that it rimmed the outfield, causing easy fly balls to go for ground rule doubles when they disappeared into the sea of onlookers.

Unfortunately, the game itself was anti-climactic. The Harrisburg Telegraph accused the Nationals of playing “uninspired” baseball.50 The Nationals brought only nine players with them and no bats. They used the Klein team equipment. Johnson pitched only the first three innings and then switched positions with center fielder Sam Rice, who took over the pitching. The Kleins prevailed, 4–3, in twelve innings, behind the pitching of Norman Plitt. The winning run scored, fittingly in this sloppily played game, on a Rice wild pitch. The Harrisburg Telegraph reporter said the run “looked like another Washington gift.”51

THE SEASON WINDS DOWN

As the infamous 1919 World Series between the Cincinnati Reds and the Chicago “Black Sox” got under way, the Klein Chocolate team was preparing for a busy final three games of the season, all against majorleague competition. They had two games with the New York Giants sandwiched around a game against a barnstorming group of American League All-Stars.

The Giants had finished second in the National League. The first game was scheduled for Rossmere Field in Lancaster on October 4. The lineup that manager John McGraw sent out against the Klein team included 17-game winner Rube Benton, future Hall of Famers Frankie Frisch and Ross Youngs, and other regulars like George Burns and Larry Doyle. Benton pitched a two-hit shutout and the Kleins went down to a 7–0 defeat.52

The next day the Klein Chocolate team traveled to Marietta, Pennsylvania, to face off against the American League “All-Stars.” A crowd of 2,500 showed up to see such major leaguers as Del Pratt of the New York Yankees and Amos Strunk, Whitey Witt, Cy Perkins, and George Burns of the Athletics. Dave Keefe of the A’s pitched for the All-Stars. He was opposed by Art Decatur. The Klein team prevailed, 2–0, as Decatur shut down the All-Stars on six hits.53

The rematch with the Giants was held at Island Park on October 6. This time the Giants pitcher was 25-game winner Jesse Barnes. Bill Ritter pitched for the Kleins. The game was a tight pitchers’ duel for the first eight innings as the Giants built a slim 3–2 lead. The Giants finally got to Ritter for five runs in the ninth to make the final score 8–2. The Lancaster News-Journal described the crowd as “mediocre.”54

A CELEBRATION AND UNCERTAIN FUTURE

On the evening of October 7, the Klein brothers hosted a banquet for the players at the Greenwalt House in Elizabethtown. Invited guests included friends of the players who had supported the team throughout the historic season and members of the press who had publicized the team’s exploits. An “excellent chicken dinner” was followed by the cutting of a large cake in the shape of the Elizabethtown baseball grounds.55 The occasion, while festive, was bittersweet. While Frederick Klein, in his remarks, promised another great team for next year, no one could be certain what the future held.56 Many of the players left for home immediately after the banquet, while a few stayed to work in the Klein Chocolate factory.57

The final statistics for the 1919 Klein Chocolate team were indeed impressive. The Lebanon Evening Report called it “the most successful [season] ever experienced by a semi-professional organization.”58 The team’s final record was 69–14–2 with one forfeit on that rainy day in Parkesburg when manager Brackenridge pulled the team off the field. Leading hitters on the team were Bill Kay with a .358 batting average, Russ Wrightstone at .338, and Frank Brannon at .325. Wrightstone led the team in extra-base hits. While several pitchers contributed to the success of the team, none was more important or more consistently excellent than Walter Harned.

Most remarkably, the team played 11 games against major league teams, going 7–4, beating the Athletics and Nationals each twice and scoring victories over the Red Sox, Brooklyns, and Cardinals. Only the major league New York Giants and the Negro independent team the Atlantic City Bacharach Giants were superior to the Klein Chocolate team over multiple matchups.

The team certainly achieved the goal that William Klein had aimed for when he decided to go all in for baseball. As the Lancaster New Era put it, the team “put Lancaster County on the baseball map… and incidentally, made the Klein Chocolate known from coast to coast.”59

FROM KLEIN CHOCOLATE TO THE MAJOR LEAGUES

Any hopes that the Klein team could repeat its success the following season were quickly dashed as major league teams and other semi-professional teams came bidding for Klein team talent. In January, Klein third baseman Russ Wrightstone signed with the Philadelphia Phillies. The 27-year-old Wrightstone would have a productive eight-year major-league career with the Phillies and New York Giants. The Klein team was his training ground. Wrightstone, who compiled a lifetime .297 batting average in the major leagues, never spent a day in minor league baseball prior to his majorleague debut.

While no other Klein players went directly to the major leagues, several signed major league contracts and a few did eventually make it to the bigs. Art Decatur signed with Louisville in the American Association and by 1922 he was with Brooklyn. Earl Potteiger became the manager of the Lebanon team in the semi-pro Bethlehem Steel League, and he signed Norman Plitt to pitch for him. Plitt played for several local teams before eventually surfacing in the major leagues with the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1927. Injuries from an auto accident that year cut short his major league career.60

Potteiger eventually made his name as the head coach of the champion New York (Football) Giants in the National Football League. While there he coached former Klein player Hinkey Haines, who was signed by the New York Yankees, played on the Yankees 1923 World Series championship team, and then switched to football, winning a title as a key member of the backfield with the 1927 New York (Football) Giants.

Pitcher “Big Bill” Ritter re-signed with his former team, the New York Giants, but never returned to the big leagues, eventually pitching for the local Motive Power team. Catcher Irvin “Bugs” Trout was signed by the St. Louis Cardinals and was farmed out to Houston in the Texas League. Shortstop Frank Brannon went to Tulsa to play in the Western League. Dick Kauffman signed with Atlanta in the Southern Association. As a forty-one-year-old outfielder, Bill Kay caught on with Greenville in the South Atlantic League. George Hunter signed to play with a different local team, the Lancaster-Baltimore squad. Charlie Babbington played several years in the International and New York-Pennsylvania Leagues.

THE KLEIN CHOCOLATE TEAM AFTER 1919

Only two players from the 1919 Klein squad returned for the 1920 season. Bill Cranston stayed with the team, before quitting in a dispute with management in June. He later became the manager of the local Mount Union team. Walter Harned pitched for a time with the Klein team in 1920 and then for several other semi-pro teams in the area, before landing a few years later with the Harrisburg Senators of the New York-Pennsylvania League.

The Klein brothers rehired manager Brackenridge for the 1920 season and announced their intention to field a superior team once again, but it was not to be. Brackenridge again combed the region for the best players he could find, and high salaries were offered, but the magic was gone: the talent pool was dry. After two months of uninspired play, which saw the team losing more games than they won, William Klein pulled the plug in late June. When informing the players that the team was being disbanded, Klein handed each player his final check and a box of Klein chocolate, possibly, as the Lancaster News-Journal speculated, “to remind them of better times.”61

From 1921 through 1932 the Klein Chocolate Company fielded modest teams, with modest ambitions, at a much more modest cost than in the 1919 heyday. A highlight of this period of Klein baseball history came in May 1932 when the Klein team hosted a game against the House of David team featuring the great Grover Cleveland Alexander, then 45 years old and far past his prime, but still a major attraction for baseball fans.62

Although the team never reached such lofty heights as it had in 1919, William Klein’s gamble paid off. His 1919 Klein Chocolate baseball team attracted nationwide attention for the excellence of their play and for their ability to defeat major-league competition. That attention put the Klein Chocolate brand in the headlines of newspapers throughout the country. The exploits of the team helped Klein Chocolate become a major competitor in the candy field. The company flourished for many years until the Kleins finally sold the company and the factory to M&M Mars in 1970. The factory employs 300 people to this day.63

Sources

In addition to the notes below, the author consulted Baseball-Reference.com and the following newspapers: The Harrisburg Telegraph, The Evening News (Harrisburg, PA), The Lancaster News-Journal, The Lancaster New Era, The Evening Report (Lebanon, PA), and The Wilkes-Barre Times Leader, for information on individual players and games. The author would also like to thank Fran Strouse of Elizabethtown, Pennsylvania, for his invaluable assistance in researching the story of the Klein Team and Dixie Kaley of the Elizabethtown Historical Society for making the resources of the Society available.

Notes

1. Christian Wilbers, “William Klein,” Immigrant Entrepreneurship. Accessed on November 12, 2021. https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/william-klein.

2. “William Klein.”

3. At least one of the finest white independent teams. In these segregated times, before the formal organization of the Negro Leagues, at least one of the Negro teams, the Bacharach Giants, was likely a superior team to the Kleins, as the Bacharachs’ sustained history of excellence suggests.

4. “William Klein.”

5. Gerald Heusken, “A Year Probably Never Before Equaled: The Klein Chocolate Company Team and Its Nine-Game Major League Run of 1919,” File of the Baseball Hall of Fame, Cooperstown, NY.

6. “William Klein.”

7. “William Klein.”

8. “William Klein.”

9. “William Klein.”

10. “E-Town to Have Fast Team in Chocolate Nine,” Lancaster News-Journal, April 29, 1919: 9.

11. “Klein Chocolate Erects Grandstand,” Lancaster News-Journal, May 12, 1919: 8.

12. “Base Ball Notes,” Lancaster New Era, May 3, 1919: 3.

13. Killinger stayed with the Klein team for only a few months before returning to Penn State where he starred in football, basketball, and baseball. He was named an All-American in football and later played professionally in the National Football League with the Canton Bulldogs. He also played for 10 seasons in minor league baseball. He later became a noted football and baseball coach at West Chester State Teachers College (now West Chester University).

14. “West End Much Stronger; Will Battle St. Mary’s,” Harrisburg Telegraph, June 7, 1918: 17.

15. “E-Town’s New Team Starts with Win,” Lancaster New Era, May 26, 1919: 6.

16. Big Day at Elizabethtown When Klein Company Opens Athletic Field,” Harrisburg Telegraph, May 31, 1919: 13.

17. “Big Day at Elizabethtown When Klein Company Opens Athletic Field.”

18. “Klein Chocolate Team Shows Quaker Fans It Is No Rube, Three Games Won in Tour,” Harrisburg Telegraph, June 23, 1919: 10.

19. “Klein Chocolate Team Shows Quaker Fans It Is No Rube, Three Games Won in Tour.”

20. “Klein Chocolate on Winning Trip,” Lancaster New Era, June 23, 1919: 6.

21. “Klein Team Lose in 16 Innings,” The (Harrisburg) Evening News, June 26, 1919: 11.

22. “Connie Mack is Coming to Harrisburg from the West,” Harrisburg Telegraph, July 18, 1919: 28.

23. “Klein Chocolate Downs Athletics,” Lancaster New Era,” July 24, 1919: 6.

24. “Athletics Lose Contest to Klein Chocolates, 4–2,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 24, 1919: 13. “Athletics the “Candy Kids,” New York Tribune, July 24, 1919: 13.

25. The New York Tribune reported that the Athletics “had lost their self-respect entirely.” While the headline in the Wilmington (DE) Morning News crowed “Even Klein Chocolate Are Better Than Athletics.”

26. “Dry Docks Lost to Klein Chocolate,” Lancaster New Era, August 8, 1919: 6.

27. “Klein Buds Win 34th Victory of the 1919 Season,” The (Lebanon, PA) Evening Report, August 11, 1919: 5.

28. “Big Stars with St. Louis Cardinals Meet Klein Team H. A. C. Field Tuesday,” Harrisburg Telegraph, August 9, 1919: 13.

29. “Klein Chocolate Trims Cardinals,” Lancaster New Era, August 13, 1919: 6.

30. “Klein Chocolate Trims Cardinals,”

31. Bacharach Giants Defeat Klein Co.” Lancaster New Era, August 19, 1919: 6.

32. “Kleins Lose Two,” The (Harrisburg) Evening News, September 1, 1919: 9.

33. “Great Crowd Sees Exhibition Game Between Cincinnati and Klein Boys,” Harrisburg Telegraph, August 30, 1919: 17.

34. “Great Crowd Sees Exhibition Game Between Cincinnati and Klein Boys,”

35. “Klein Chocolate Loses Hard Game,” Lancaster News-Journal, September 2, 1919: 8.

36. “Sports Scraps,” Lancaster News-Journal, September 9, 1919; 8.

37. Gerald Heusken,

38. “Klein Wallops Athletics, 8–2.” Lancaster News-Journal, September 9, 1919: 8

39. “Klein Chocolate Leaves Diamond,” Lancaster News-Journal, September 11, 1919: 9.

40. Klein Club Downs Dodgers,” Lancaster New Era, September 23, 1919: 6.

41. Gerald Heusken.

42. Gerald Heusken.

43. “Local Players May Go Upline,” The (Harrisburg) Evening News, September 27, 1919: 11.

44. “Boston Blanked by Klein Chocolate, The (Lancaster) New Era, September 26, 1919: 6.

45. Gerald Heusken. Decatur pitched for Nashville in the Southern Association in 1919 and joined the Klein team after Nashville’s season concluded. He would later pitch in the major leagues, for the Dodgers and Phillies. He was 10-9 as a swing man for the Dodgers in 1924. He was a teammate of Russ Wrightstone on the Phillies from 1925–27.

46. “Boston Red Sox Bat Out Close Win Over Red Sox,” The (Lancaster) New Era, September 27, 1919: 6.

47. Gerald Heusken.

48. Gerald Heusken.

49. Gerald Heusken.

50. “Washington Hands Fans Poor Quality of Baseball.” Harrisburg Telegraph, September 30, 1919: 15.

51. “Washington Hands Fans Poor Quality of Baseball.”

52. “Giants Win from Klein Chocolate, Lancaster News-Journal, October 6, 1919: 8.

53. “Kleins Beat American All Stars,” The (Wilkes Barre) Evening News, October 6, 1919: 12.

54. “Giants Trounce Klein Tossers,” Lancaster News-Journal, October 7, 1919: 8.

55. “Klein Chocolate Team Closes Successful Season,” Lancaster New Era, October 8, 1919: 6.

56. “Klein Chocolate Team Closes Successful Season.”

57. “Klein Chocolate Team Closes Successful Season.”

58. Gerald Heusken.

59. “Klein Chocolate Team Closes Successful Season.”

60. “Norman Plitt Injured in Auto Accident,” Harrisburg Telegraph, December 16, 1927: 21.

61. “Klein Players Are Given the Gate,” Lancaster News-Journal, June 23, 1920: 8.

62. “Famous House of David Baseball Team to Again Play Klein Team in Night Game Here on June 2,” Elizabethtown Chronicle (Elizabethtown, PA), May 20, 1932: 1.

63. Chad Umble, “5 Key Moments in Elizabethtown History,” Lancaster Online, Accessed on November 12, 2021. https://lancasteronline.com/features/5-key-moments-in-elizabethtowns-history/article_87962f06-8444-11e7-8b9d-1fa4e7d48265.html#:~:text=Klein%20Chocolate%20becoming%20a%20major%20player%20in%20the,Milky%20Way.%20It%20has%20more%20than%20300%20employees.

In 1947, the Pittsburgh Pirates installed an inner fence in a portion of Forbes Field, reducing the distance down the left field line of the ballpark by 30 feet. The purpose of the fence was to assist the team’s newest acquisition, Hank Greenberg, in his ability to hit home runs. The area between the new fence and the outer wall became known as Greenberg Gardens.1

Forbes Field is long gone, having been demolished in 1971. Greenberg Gardens is even longer gone, having been removed before the beginning of the 1954 season. But the memory of Greenberg Gardens lingers, for being an unusual attempt to adjust the dimensions of a baseball playing field to benefit a single batter. The following is the story of Greenberg Gardens, the ballpark, Forbes Field, the intended beneficiary of Greenberg Gardens, Hank Greenberg, and its unintended beneficiary, Ralph Kiner.

FORBES FIELD

The Pittsburgh Pirates played their first game at the newly built Forbes Field on June 30, 1909. The ballpark was erected in the Oakland section of the City of Pittsburgh, on the edge of Schenley Park; 30,338 fans attended the game, only to see the Cubs beat the Pirates, 3–2.2

Built of concrete and steel rather than the traditional wood, the cost of the new ballpark was about one million dollars.3,4 The park received very good reviews upon its opening. The Pittsburgh Gazette Times wrote, “Forbes Field is the marvel of the world.”5 Ring Lardner, writing in the Chicago Tribune, extolled the virtues of the setting of Forbes Field in Schenley Park, calling it a “beautiful new field.”6 The 1910 Reach Baseball Guide said, “For architectural beauty, imposing size, solid construction and public comfort and convenience, it has not its superior in the world.”7

Despite these accolades, several changes were made in the configuration of the playing dimensions of Forbes Field over the years, many of which affected the left-field home-run distance. In May 1911, less than two years after Forbes Field opened, home plate was moved about 26 feet back toward the grandstand and the field was shifted slightly towards right field, enlarging the playing surface and increasing the distance down the left field line to 360 feet from its original distance of about 306 feet.8 In 1925, a new scoreboard was erected in left field, near the foul line but in fair territory, causing many long balls hit in that direction to become doubles rather than home runs.9 In 1930, home plate was moved five feet further from left field (and the foul lines shifted slightly), increasing the distance down the left field line to 365 feet.10

Given these many changes in the left-field dimensions, the addition of Greenberg Gardens in 1947 was not that unusual. However, Greenberg Gardens turned out to be very controversial. Part of the issue was aesthetics; the other was its effect on home runs hit in the ballpark.

HANK GREENBERG

Henry Benjamin (“Hank”) Greenberg was born in New York City on January 1, 1911, to David and Sarah Greenberg, both Jewish immigrants from Romania. Hank excelled at multiple sports in high school, including basketball and baseball. After high school, he received interest from several major league teams. In 1929, Greenberg signed with the Detroit Tigers and was brought up to the big leagues in 1933.11 By May, he had become the regular first baseman of the Tigers. The following year, 1934, was his breakout season—he hit 26 home runs and had 139 RBIs. However, he is most famous for not playing that year on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year in the Jewish religion.12

In 1935, Greenberg led the American League in home runs, and was voted the Most Valuable Player. In his most famous season, 1938, Greenberg almost broke Babe Ruth’s season home run record of 60, finishing with 58 home runs. Greenberg had good seasons in 1939 and 1940 (winning the Most Valuable Player award again in 1940), but thereafter he was off to war, missing most of four seasons during World War II, and not returning to his team until July 1, 1945. Despite the long layoff, Greenberg hit a grand slam in the top of the ninth inning on the last day of the season to send the Tigers to the World Series.

At the start of the 1946 season, Greenberg was 35 years old and his physical condition was deteriorating. During the season, his lower back—which had bothered him in his military days— continued to nag him. His batting average, which had been consistently over .300, dropped significantly, even though in the end, he led the American League in both home runs and RBIs. Nevertheless, Detroit was interested in dumping Greenberg’s high salary and when an erroneous off-season report in The Sporting News led Walter O. Briggs, the owner of the Tigers, to believe that Greenberg wanted to play for the Yankees, he grew determined to get rid of the slugger.13 On January 18, 1947, the Tigers sold Greenberg’s contract to the Pirates.14

The deal was a big risk for Pittsburgh, as they were out the money paid to Detroit for Greenberg’s contract even if Greenberg did not actually come to Pittsburgh to play. At the time, Greenberg was seriously contemplating retirement—in fact, he told the Pirates in February that he was retiring.15 However, the Pirates were not dissuaded. New owner John Galbreath spent three days trying to convince Greenberg to change his mind. He even enlisted the help of another new Pirates owner, Bing Crosby.16 They addressed Greenberg’s two main objections: money and the long left-field dimension of Forbes Field. Galbreath offered to pay Greenberg $100,000 per year, making him the highest paid player in the game, and told Greenberg that the Pirates were already contemplating moving the bullpens to left field. The change would reduce the distance down the line to about the same as it was at Briggs Stadium in Detroit, which had been Greenberg’s home field for years. With the promises and cajoling, Greenberg finally agreed to become a Pittsburgh Pirate.17

In the end, Hank Greenberg played only one season in Pittsburgh, hitting only 25 home runs, despite the installation of the shorter fence. Lingering injuries caused him to miss several games that year. Greenberg retired at the end of the season.18

RALPH KINER

The person who benefitted the most from Hank Greenberg’s one year in Pittsburgh was Ralph Kiner. Kiner led the National League in home runs for the six full seasons while playing in Forbes Field with Greenberg Gardens. With his home-run title in 1946, Kiner led the National League in home runs for seven consecutive seasons, a record that still stands today.19 More importantly, Greenberg immediately took Kiner under his wing and helped him with his hitting and attitude toward the game.

Ralph McPherran Kiner was born on October 27, 1922, in Santa Rita, New Mexico. After his father’s death when Ralph was only four, the family moved to California where, with the help of a neighbor, he learned the game of baseball. As he grew up, he played baseball in local sandlot games and in high school. He also played for the Junior Yankees, an amateur team sponsored by the New York Yankees. At the time, there was an unwritten agreement among major league baseball clubs that players with major-league-sponsored junior teams would be signed by the parent organizations when they became old enough to play professionally.20 However, once Kiner graduated from high school, the Pirates made a strong bid for his services, convincing him that he had a better chance of making it to the majors faster with the Pirates than with the Yankees. Kiner signed with the Pirates in 1940.

Kiner’s baseball career started in the minor leagues in 1941, but after two seasons, his playing career was interrupted by his service in the Navy Air Corps. Returning to the game for the 1946 season, Kiner expected to be sent to the minors, but after a good spring training, he was promoted to the big club where he had a very good rookie season. He led the National League in home runs with 23, equaling the Pirates club record set in 1939 by Johnny Rizzo.21 He also had 81 RBIs.

When Hank Greenberg arrived the following year, he started working with Kiner on his hitting in spring training. They often worked after the official practice sessions had ended, and then before games once the regular season commenced. He moved Kiner closer to the plate, taught him how to study pitchers, and convinced him not to try to hit to the opposite field. Despite Greenberg’s efforts, Kiner’s season started slowly and manager Billy Herman wanted to send Kiner to the minors. Greenberg, however, intervened, convincing management to keep Kiner in the big leagues. Greenberg’s faith in his protégée was rewarded, as Kiner hit 51 home runs that year, with a batting average of .313.22

Branch Rickey became the general manager of the Pirates on November 6, 1950.23 Even though Kiner was still swatting home runs and drawing fans to the ballpark (although attendance decreased with the poor record of the Pirates), Rickey was not happy with Kiner’s high salary. Rickey wanted to trade Kiner and start anew with younger players. However, Rickey could not do this on his own authority. He needed the consent of John Galbreath, the president and an owner of the Pirates. Rickey began a multi-year smear campaign against Kiner with Galbreath. He also leaked false facts about Kiner to the press, hoping to diminish Kiner’s standing with the fans.24

On June 4, 1953, Branch Rickey got his wish, trading Kiner to the Chicago Cubs in a ten-player deal. Along with Ralph Kiner, the Pirates traded Joe Garagiola, Howie Pollet, and George Metkovich. The Pirates received Toby Atwell, Bob Schultz, Preston Ward, George Freese, Bob Addis, and Gene Hermanski, none of whom became anything special for the Pirates. Perhaps most important to Rickey, the Pirates also received a cash payment of $150,000. Since the Cubs were playing the Pirates that afternoon at Forbes Field, Kiner simply switched uniforms and played for the visitors in the game.

THE FENCE GOES UP

Turning back to 1947, just before the start of the baseball season and the arrival of Hank Greenberg in Pittsburgh, the Pirates announced major upgrades to Forbes Field. These included new bathrooms, dressing rooms, and dugouts, the reduction of the area behind home plate to the backstop fence, additional box seats, and the installation of Greenberg Gardens.25

The Gardens was created by installing a fence that ran almost parallel to the left-field brick wall and scoreboard of the ballpark for about 200 feet, and then tapered at a sharp angle back to the outer wall, meeting that wall near the light standard closest to center field.26 This reduced the home-run distance down the left field line of Forbes Field by 30 feet and by slightly greater distances the farther away the fence was from the foul line. Previously, when a ball hit the scoreboard, it was in play and usually resulted in a double. Now a ball hit off the scoreboard—25.42 feet high on its sides and 27 feet in the middle—became an automatic home run.27

The Gardens’ fence was eight feet tall, with a three-foot high wooden base and five feet of fencing. Both bullpens were moved into the Gardens, with the Pirates’ on the left, the visitors’ on the right, and a wooden wall between them.

The Gardens was an aesthetic nightmare for one of the most beautiful ballparks in the major leagues. Because the original outer wall remained in place, the Gardens always looked like a temporary structure, never truly fitting in with the rest of the stadium. The fence cut out a chunk of the vast interior of Forbes Field, one of its significant attributes, with the outfield no longer seeming to be a never-ending expanse of green. The temporary fence distracted from the high and leafy trees of Schenley Park which surrounded left and center fields, and detracted from the red brick outer walls with their beginnings of hanging ivy.

Forbes Field was well known for the lack of advertising on its walls.28 But once Greenberg Gardens was constructed, a portion of the ivy in the middle of the visitors’ bullpen was removed and large white letters and numbers were placed on the wall there, announcing the Pirates’ next home game. A photograph of the era shows that on at least one occasion a banner was placed over the wall, advertising an upcoming promotion at Forbes Field. It is true that these were not third-party advertisements, as could be seen on the walls and scoreboards of numerous other major league ballparks of the era. These could properly be characterized more as announcements than advertising. Nevertheless, these announcements marred the character and beauty of the ballpark.

The debut of Greenberg Gardens on Opening Day at Forbes Field, April 18, 1947, was spectacular. The Pirates beat the Reds in a slugfest, 12–11. There were six home runs hit that day, five of which landed in the Gardens. Surprisingly, neither Hank Greenberg nor Ralph Kiner hit any, even though the Pirates hit five of the six. This unexpected outburst of homers, though, meant that Greenberg Gardens was mired in controversy right from the start. Harry Keck, the sports editor of the Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, wrote, “The cheap home runs made a farce out of what might have been a pretty good ball game.”29

The controversy over Greenberg Gardens continued throughout the season (and, in fact, throughout its existence). On May 7, 1947, The Sporting News published an editorial decrying ball clubs which build fences in the outfield to benefit certain home-run hitters. The paper said, “The outstanding offense was the building of the so-called Greenberg Gardens in Forbes Field in Pittsburgh. … The Sporting News believes that in such matters as the construction of Greenberg Gardens, the issue of fair play is involved.”30

During the 1947 season, as Ralph Kiner took greater advantage of the Gardens than Hank Greenberg, some fans and writers started calling the area “Kiner’s Korner.” Once Hank Greenberg left, the new name became increasingly popular, but most people and writers continued to refer to the area as Greenberg Gardens, even after the Gardens’ demise.

Billy Meyer became the manager of the Pirates after the 1947 season. In December of that year, he visited Forbes Field for the first time in his career and got his first look at Greenberg Gardens. Meyer also looked at some of the statistics for the Gardens. He then intimated to the press that there could be changes made to the Gardens, including possibly tearing them out completely.31 Instead, the following year, the portion of the Gardens fence from the left field foul pole to a point near the visitors’ bullpen was raised to 16 feet, although it then quickly tapered down to eight feet, and then continued at eight feet for the rest of its length.32 This change may have had some success in reducing the number of Gardens home runs at Forbes Field. In 1947, 116 home runs were hit into the Gardens—in 1948, only 74.

After 1948, as disclosed in newspaper articles of the day, there were numerous discussions of demolishing Greenberg Gardens. However, the structure seemed to be impervious to criticism or the wrecking ball. The Gardens remained in place through seven baseball seasons and was finally removed before the start of the 1954 season.

WAS GREENBERG GARDENS A SUCCESS?

Greenberg Gardens was installed in Forbes Field with the initial intent of providing Hank Greenberg with the opportunity to hit more home runs in Pittsburgh. It remained in place after Greenberg left the team because Ralph Kiner was hitting lots of home runs into the Gardens, thereby drawing fans to the ballpark. Unfortunately for the Pirates, the visiting team also had the advantage of hitting at Forbes Field with a shortened fence. According to a 1954 article in The Sporting News, over its seven-year existence, visiting teams hit 285 homers into the Gardens while the Pirates hit only 265 such home runs.33 Given the Pirates’ woes as a team during the Gardens years, finishing in last place three times and finishing in the second division in every year except one, a 20-home-run deficit may not seem all that bad. Nevertheless, over the long term, Greenberg Gardens was a negative with regard to the Pirates’ fortunes on the field.

As to Hank Greenberg, the Gardens also cannot be considered a success. In his one year with the Pirates, 1947, Greenberg hit only 25 home runs. Of that total, 18 were hit at Forbes Field, of which nine landed in the Gardens. It is true that nine home runs were more than a third of Hank Greenberg’s home-run production that year, contributing to his landing in eighth place on the list of National League home run leaders for 1947. And without Greenberg Gardens, Greenberg’s home-run production in 1947 might have been truly abysmal. However, in addition to leading the American League in home runs in 1935, 1938, and 1940, Greenberg led the American League in home runs in his last season with Detroit, just before coming to Pittsburgh, hitting 44 home runs in 1946. A 25-home-run season in Pittsburgh must be considered a major disappointment for Hank Greenberg.

As to Ralph Kiner, however, Greenberg Gardens made his career. Of the 369 home runs that Kiner hit throughout his major league career, 71 landed in Greenberg Gardens.34 That is about 20% of his home run production. Without Greenberg Gardens, Kiner’s total career home runs would have been less than 300. Also, without the Gardens, instead of leading the National League in home runs for seven consecutive seasons, one of Kiner’s major claims to fame, Kiner would have led the League in only three of those seasons, 1946, 1949, and 1950. In 1948, he would have fallen to sixth place in the list of league leaders.35 Based on these statistics, it is clear that without Greenberg Gardens, Ralph Kiner would never have made it to the Hall of Fame.

Greenberg Gardens was therefore an incredible boon to Ralph Kiner’s playing career. Some people back then, and even to this day, contend that Ralph Kiner had an unfair advantage over other players because of the shortening of the left field home run distance at Forbes Field during his years with the Pirates.36 The facts are different.

Table 1A contains a chart of the dimensions of the left field foul lines of all the major league ballparks as of Opening Day, 1950.37 As can be seen, about half of the major league ballparks that year had left-field foul lines that were shorter than Forbes Field’s, a few substantially shorter.

In fact, as shown in Table 1B, there were also some significantly shorter right-field foul lines in 1950, which would have helped home-run-hitting left-handed batters. In addition, the two replacement stadiums for Forbes Field had or have short left field lines. (See Table 1C.) The left field foul pole at Three Rivers Stadium was 335 feet from home plate for most of its existence, the same distance from home plate to Greenberg Gardens. At PNC Park, the distance down the left field line is 325 feet, ten feet shorter than the distance to Greenberg Gardens. Another relevant factor is the Major League Baseball rule which sets forth the minimum distances in the construction of baseball stadiums.38 It provides that for any baseball park built or remodeled after June 1, 1958, the distance from home plate to the foul poles must be at least 325 feet. Greenberg Gardens met that standard.

Thus, Ralph Kiner did not receive an unfair home-run-hitting advantage when Greenberg Gardens was installed at Forbes Field. It was a fair field of play that gave him the opportunity to become the greatest home-run hitter of his era. Kiner earned his selection to the Hall of Fame on his merits.

Of course, baseball is a business, even back in the 1940s and 50s, and the bottom line is what counts. Table 2 contains a chart of the total yearly attendance in major league baseball and the Pirates’ attendance at Forbes Field, from 1945 to 1954 and 1960.39 As expected, baseball attendance grew sharply at the end of World War II, as many important stars returned to the game from the military and the economy was strong. Between 1945 and 1946, attendance in the major leagues increased by more than 7.6 million fans or by approximately 71%. The Pirates’ attendance also increased between 1945 and 1946 but much more modestly.

However, the next year, 1947, with Greenberg Gardens in place, the Pirates’ attendance increased by more than 533,000 fans, or by approximately 71%. It continued to increase the following year, by another 233,000 fans (another 18%), while major league baseball’s total attendance increases were much more moderate in those years.

In 1947, for the first time in Pirates’ history, more than 1,000,000 fans attended the team’s games, a milestone that continued for the next three seasons, even though the Pirates were never close to winning the National League pennant in any of those years and, indeed, finished in the bottom half of the league in three of those four years. It was not until the World Championship year of 1960 that the Pirates were able to break their attendance record set in 1948. Of course, it is difficult to determine all the reasons for fluctuations in a baseball team’s annual attendance, but the addition of Hank Greenberg in 1947, and the home run hitting of Ralph Kiner in 1947 and subsequent seasons were significant factors.

Indeed, the title of a 1949 story in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said it all: “Second-Division Pirates Draw Fans Because of Ralph Kiner.”40 According to the article, Pirates fans “had nothing but scorn for the impotent Pirates (who were 25.5 games out of first place), but they kept paying their way into Forbes Field to gaze, with the dewy-eyed reverence of Babylonian idol worshipers, upon big, amiable, good-looking Ralph McPherran Kiner.” In August 1950, the General Manager of the Pirates, Roy Hamey, said, in much simpler language, “Ralph is our gate. No player in the game is so important to his team.”41

Thus, the Pirates’ bottom line increased substantially through most of the Gardens years. Greenberg Gardens must therefore be considered a major financial success, even though it was not necessarily an athletic or aesthetic success.

THE FENCE COMES DOWN

Branch Rickey announced the trade of Ralph Kiner to the Chicago Cubs at a press conference around noon on Thursday, June 4, 1953. At a second press conference later that day, Rickey announced that the Gardens fence would be torn down before the Pirates’ game the following night with Cincinnati. Rickey said, “I don’t believe in building artificial barriers to suit any individual.”42 At that second press conference, someone whispered, “The guy wrecked the ball club at noon, now he’s wrecking the park.”43 At first, Warren Giles, the president of the National League, approved the removal of the Gardens.44

On the morning of June 5, 1953, the grounds crew at Forbes Field started to tear down the Gardens fence. A little after noon, however, Giles informed Branch Rickey that the fence could not be torn down during the season. It seemed that the National League had an internal rule to the effect that the dimensions of a ballpark could not be changed during a season without the approval of at least six of the eight owners. Three clubs voted against the change.45 The grounds crew then had to immediately reverse course and reinstall the portions of the fence that it had removed.46

Two of the teams who voted against the removal of Greenberg Gardens were the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Giants. Dodgers vice-president Buzzy Bavasi said, “We voted no on principle. It would be a bad precedent. According to what Rickey wants, a club could change its park to suit every trade it might make.”47 The name of the third team in opposition was not disclosed, but most people assumed it was the Chicago Cubs, who probably believed that since Ralph Kiner was going to play for them for the remainder of the year, they should let him take advantage of the Gardens as a visiting player.48 If that was the Cubs’ strategy, it did not work. Kiner played six games at Forbes Field as a Chicago Cub in 1953, with Greenberg Gardens in place, without hitting any home runs. (Nor did Kiner hit any home runs at Forbes Field the following year for the Cubs, with Greenberg Gardens gone.)

Greenberg Gardens was finally removed in February 1954.49 The bullpens were shifted back to their prior locations, with the Pirates’ pen down the right field line and the visitors’ down the left field line. Al Abrams, the sports editor for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, commenting on opening day at the ballpark that year, wrote, “‘Greenberg Gardens,’ the worst eyesore in Pittsburgh baseball history, was missing yesterday at Forbes Field for the first time since 1947.” Abrams further wrote that the capsule comment of the customers was: “Now, it looks like the beautiful park it used to be.”50

The removal of Greenberg Gardens after the 1953 season closed the book on its seven-year existence, allowing some statistical calculations to be made. During the existence of Greenberg Gardens, 1,041 home runs were hit at Forbes Field, of which 550 landed in the Gardens. That means that about 53% of all home runs hit at Forbes Field during that period were hit into Greenberg Gardens. Stated differently, there were more than twice as many home runs hit at Forbes Field from 1947 through 1953 with Greenberg Gardens in place than there would have been if Greenberg Gardens had not been built.

Of the 550 total home runs hit into the Gardens, Ralph Kiner hit 71 of them, or about 13%. Of the 265 homers the Pirates hit into the Gardens, Kiner hit about 27% of them. The most home runs Kiner hit in a season into the Gardens was 15 in 1948. Not counting his shortened season with the Pirates in 1953, the fewest home runs Kiner hit into the Gardens in a season was 7 in 1950, one of the years that Kiner would have led the National League in home runs even without the Gardens.

The most total home runs hit into the Gardens in a single season was 116 in 1947, the only season before a portion of the fence was raised from 8 feet to 16 feet. The smallest number of home runs hit into the Gardens in a single season was 58 in 1952. Wally Westlake, an outfielder and third baseman for the Pirates from 1947 to mid-season 1951, hit the second-most Pirate home runs into the Gardens. Out of his career total of 127 home runs, Westlake hit 37 into the Gardens.

The visiting team with the most home runs into the Gardens was the Brooklyn Dodgers, with 66; the fewest was by the St. Louis Cardinals, with 24. The visiting players with the most home runs into the Gardens were Jackie Robinson and Gil Hodges of the Brooklyn Dodgers, each with 13, and Bobby Thomson of the New York Giants, with 12.

AFTER THE GARDENS

Both Hank Greenberg and Ralph Kiner found success in baseball after their playing days. In 1948, Greenberg became the farm director for the Cleveland Indians, then in November 1949, the general manager. He put together the roster of the 1954 team, which set the American League record for most wins in a season (111), although they would lose the World Series in four straight to the New York Giants. In his eight years as Cleveland’s general manager, the team finished in first or second place six times. In 1956, Greenberg became the first Jewish ballplayer inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The Tigers retired his uniform number (#5) in 1983. Hank Greenberg died on September 4, 1986.

Ralph Kiner remained with the Chicago Cubs for the remainder of the 1953 season and the entire 1954 season. He hit 35 home runs in 1953, but after that, his home-run production fell sharply. He was traded to Cleveland for the 1955 season, where he partnered once again with his buddy, Hank Greenberg. However, back problems caused Kiner to miss many games that season and he retired at the end of the year.

Kiner’s second baseball career was at least as successful as his first. In 1962, he joined the broadcast team of the expansion New York Mets. He said at the time that he was chosen “because I had a lot of experience with losing.”51 Kiner continued as a Mets broadcaster through 2013. He is still one of the longest tenured broadcasters with a single team in MLB history. In homage to Greenberg Gardens, Kiner’s post-game television show on WOR (Channel 9, New York) was called Kiner’s Korner and aired for over 30 years. Kiner was elected to the Hall of Fame in 1975; the Pirates retired his uniform number (#4) in 1987. Ralph Kiner died on February 6, 2014.

Forbes Field also had success after Greenberg Gardens was removed. Although it took a few years, the Pirates’ fortunes started to turn around in the late 1950s. In 1960, the Pirates won the World Series, beating the New York Yankees, four games to three. The two big blows for the Pirates in the deciding game were a three-run homer by catcher Hal Smith in the bottom of the eighth inning and the game-winning home run by Bill Mazeroski in the bottom of the ninth inning. Both were hit over the left field wall, with room to spare. On the greatest day in Forbes Field history, there was no need for Greenberg Gardens!

Notes

1. It was sometimes referred to as “Greenberg Garden” or “Greenberg’s Gardens,” but “Greenberg Gardens” is the most common appellation. Unless otherwise noted, the statistics in this article come from or were compiled from periodic charts published in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, under the title “Garden Homers,” reviews of game descriptions in the local Pittsburgh newspapers, Baseball Reference, and Retrosheet. Other sources may have slightly different statistics for home runs into Greenberg Gardens.

2. David Finoli and Tom Aikens, Images of America Forbes Field, Charleston, S.C., Arcadia Publishing, 2013, 16.

3. Robert Trumpbour, “Forbes Field and the Progressive Era,” in David Cicotello and Angelo J. Louisa, Forbes Field: Essays and Memories of the Pirates’ Historic Ballpark, 1909–1971, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2007, 26–27.

4. Sam Bernstein, “Barney Dreyfuss and the Legacy of Forbes Field, in Cicotello, 17.

5. “More Than 30,000 Persons Witness the Opening Game on Forbes Field,” Pittsburgh Gazette Times, July 1, 1909, 8.

6. R.W. Lardner, “Nearly 36,000 See Cubs Bag Victory,” Chicago Tribune, July 1, 1909, 10.

7. Quoted in Finoli, 16.

8. Ronald M. Selter, “Inside the Park: Dimensions and Configurations of Forbes Field,” in Cicotello, 124–31; Philip J. Lowry, Green Cathedrals (Fifth Edition), “Forbes Field,” Phoenix, AZ, Society for American Baseball Research, Inc., 2019. Lowry states that the original left field distance was 315 feet.

9. “Pirates From 24 States Prepare to Depart for Camp,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 8, 1925, 25.

10. Selter, in Cicotello, 131–34.

11. He played one game with the Tigers in 1930.

12. Scott Ferkovich, “Hank Greenberg,” SABR Biography Project, https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/hank-greenberg.

13. The January 1, 1947, issue of The Sporting News included an error-riddled “scoop” that Greenberg wanted to play for the Yankees, including a photo of Greenberg holding a Yankees uniform, taken years earlier at a War Bond charity game, but passed off as current. “Briggs made no attempt to investigate—he had found the opportune moment to dump Hank and his inflated salary.” John Rosengran, Hank Greenberg: The Hero of Heroes, New York, NY: New American Library, 2013, 298.

14. Estimates of the price paid by the Pirates to the Tigers for Greenberg were between $40,000 and $85,000, according to Vince Johnson, “Greenberg’s Price Tag Is Reported ‘Around $50,000’,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, January 20, 1947, 14. Retrosheet states that the price was $75,000.

15. Rosengran, 302.

16. Harvey J. Boyle, “’Der Bingle’s’ Crooning Helped Persuade Hank,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, February 26, 1947, 16.

17. Rosengran, 303–04.

18. Rosengran, 310. According to Greenberg’s autobiography, the deal with the Pirates was always intended to be for just one year. However, at the end of the 1947 season, the Pirates asked him to come back for one more year. He declined, citing physical problems and his lack of interest in playing for a losing club. (Hank Greenberg, Ira Berkow, Hank Greenberg: The Story of My Life, New York, NY: Times Books, 1989, 176, 187.)

19. In three of those years, Kiner tied for the lead—in 1947 and ’48 with Johnny Mize of the New York Giants and in 1952 with Hank Sauer of the Chicago Cubs.

20. Robert P Broadwater, Ralph Kiner A Baseball Biography, Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2016, 16.

21. Warren Corbett, “Ralph Kiner,” SABR Biography Project, https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/ralph-kiner.

22. Rosengran, 306–07, Broadwater, 64–65.

23. John J. Burbridge, Jr., “Ralph Kiner & Branch Rickey: Not a Happy Marriage,” The National Pastime, 2018, 66.

24. Broadwater, 88, 100; Les Biederman, “$80,000.00 ’53 Pay For Kiner—5 Grand More If Sold, Traded,” and “Kiner ‘Hurt’ by B.R.’s Rap His Pay Demand Ridiculous,” both The Sporting News, March 25, 1953, 18.

25. Les Biederman, “Forbes Field Remodeling and Face-Lifting Cost $500,000,” Pittsburgh Press, March 30, 1947, 30.

26. Biederman, “Forbes Field Remodeling.”

27. Cicotello, 226.

28. On June 28, 1943, a 32-foot wooden Marine was erected to the right of the scoreboard at Forbes Field. Next to it was a promotional banner which said, “Buy War Bonds And Stamps.” It remained there through the end of the season. According to Cicotello, 226, this was the only advertising ever permitted on the outfield walls of Forbes Field. Other sources indicate that there was a war bonds banner installed during World War I. See, e.g., “The Ballparks: Forbes Field, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,” https://thisgreatgame.com/ballparks-forbes-field.

29. Harry Keck, “Sports: Those Homers Too Much of a Good Thing,” Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, April 19, 1947, 11.

30. “Stop Tinkering With Ball Parks,” The Sporting News, May 7, 1947, 12. Other examples include the White Sox, in 1934, moving home plate at Comiskey Park out 14 feet toward the center field wall to aid its recent acquisition, Al Simmons, in hitting more home runs (“Sox Open ’34 Season With Detroit,” Chicago Tribune, April 17, 1934, 21, 23); the Washington Senators, in 1950, installing 854 new seats in left field and left-center field of Briggs Stadium, reducing the home run distances in those areas by 19 feet, to aid the right-handed home-run hitters in its lineup, such as Eddie Yost, Al Kozar, Al Evans, and Sam Mele (“Griff’s Shorter Left Field Will Stay If Nats Benefit,” The Sporting News, March 8, 1950, 14); and the Pirates, in 1975, moving the symmetrical wall of Three Rivers Stadium five feet closer to home plate, to aid its crop of home-run hitters including Willie Stargell, Al Oliver, and Dave Parker. (Bob Smizik, “Those New Fences…Home Runs or Heartaches,” Pittsburgh Press, April 6, 1975, 30, 33.)

31. Les Biederman, “Meyer, Rebuilder of Pittsburgh Team, Planning Changes in Ball Park Next,” The Sporting News, December 24, 1947, 6.

32. According to Les Biederman, “Homers To Come Higher at Greenberg Gardens,” The Sporting News, March 31, 1948, 6, the fence was raised to 16 feet. Other sources indicate that the height of the fence was raised to 14 feet. “Pirates Heighten Bull Pen Fence,” Pittsburgh Press, April 15, 1948, 36; Andy Dugo, “Tigers Here For Games,” Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, April 16, 1948, 28. In an April 1950 article about calculating home run distances at the Gardens, the Pittsburgh Press measured the height of the fence and found it to be 16 feet. Bob Drum, “Reporter Gets ‘Strung Up’ Seeking Accurate Answer,” Pittsburgh Press, April 2, 1950, 53. After the fence was torn down, The Sporting News wrote that the fence “was 16 feet in direct left and sloped to eight feet in left center.” “Greenberg Gardens Razed—Homers: Foes 285, Bucs 265,” The Sporting News, March 10, 1954, 29.

33. “Greenberg Gardens Razed—Homers: Foes 285, Bucs 265,” The Sporting News, March 10, 1954, 29.

34. “Gardens Gone But Memory Lingers On,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 13, 1954, 39.

35. This conclusion was reached after deleting the Gardens home runs of Kiner and those of his competitors in each season and then re-ordering the list.

36. For example, Dick Young, the New York sports writer, wrote at the time of Kiner’s selection into the Hall of Fame, on his 15th and final year on the ballot and only by one vote, “From the original Greenberg Garden grew the canard that Kiner was a cheapie home run hitter.” Dick Young, “Young Ideas,” New York Daily News, January 24, 1975, 41. Branch Rickey said of the Gardens, after he had it torn down, “The Gardens is only a cheap home run and who wants to see cheap home runs?” “Gardens Gone But Memory Lingers On,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 13, 1954, 39.

37. Oscar Ruhl, “Kiner’s Korner No Setup,” The Sporting News, March 1, 1950, 14; Philip J. Lowry, Green Cathedrals: The Ultimate Celebration of All Major League and Negro League Ballparks (Fifth Ed.), Phoenix, AZ, The Society for American Baseball Research, 2019. Of course, the height of the fences or walls and the angle of the outfield fences from the foul lines toward center field are important factors in determining the likelihood of home runs in a particular stadium. However, based on the data available and the inconsistent locations of the measurements of ballpark distances, the length of the foul lines is a simple but effective way of comparing ballparks, and it is always an apples-to-apples comparison.

38. Rule 2.01, Note (a) and (b). The Commissioner has waived this Rule on several occasions. For example, the distance down the right field line of PNC Park is only 320 feet, but that is offset somewhat by the 21-foot-high Roberto Clemente fence in the area. “Close Call Sports,” June 19, 2012, https://www.closecallsports.com/2012/06/rule-104-note-minimum-fielddimensions.html.

39. Baseball Reference, https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/misc.shtml.

40. October 2, 1949, 22.

41. Al Stump, “What’s Ahead For Kiner?” 9 Baseball Digest, No. 8, August, 1950, 20.

42. “Greenberg Gardens to Be Torn Down,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 5, 1953, 1, 20.

43. Chester L. Smith, “The Village Smithy,” Pittsburgh Press, June 5, 1953, 37.

44. Lester J. Biederman, “Rickey’s Reputation At Stake in Kiner Deal,” Pittsburgh Press, June 5, 1937, 37.

45. Giles later called the vote selfish, unsound, and a means of seeking easy homers. “Giles Warns Baseball on Ballyhoo,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 11, 1953, 14.

46. Charles J. Doyle, “Greenberg Gardens Must Stay,” Pittsburgh Sun-Telegraph, June 5, 1953, 1.

47. “Giants and Dodgers (Plus 1) Prefer Gardens,” Pittsburgh Press, June 7, 1953, 63.

48. “Giants and Dodgers (Plus 1) Prefer Gardens.

49. “Greenberg Gardens Razed—Homers: Foes 285, Bucs 265,” The Sporting News, March 10, 1954, 29.

50. Al Abrams, “Sidelights on Sports,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 14, 1954, 18. At the same time, The Sporting News referred to Greenberg Gardens as “the atrocity in left field in Forbes Field.” Joe King, “Passing of Greenberg Gardens to Aid A.L.,” The Sporting News, April 14, 1954, 8.

51. Warren Corbett, “Ralph Kiner,” SABR Biography Project, https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/b65aaec9.

Over the past 100 years, there has been a steady increase in home runs and a decline in triples in the American and National Leagues. As home runs have climbed, triples have nearly fallen off the scorecard. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the rate of triples in 1900 was almost four times greater than the rate in 2020, and the rate of home runs in the early twentieth century was three-fourths less than the present-day rate.

The “long ball revolution” is generally attributed to the game’s evolving focus on developing hitters with greater power, capable of slugging home runs— the best possible outcome for an at bat. But is the concerted focus on hitting home runs the cause of the downward trend in triples, or are there other unquantified factors at play?

Another factor that has been widely supposed in the baseball community is the shrinking of MLB stadiums.2 Over time, new stadiums have been constructed (and reconstructed) with smaller and more uniform fields of play than the older ones, and in this paper I aim to confirm that this factor solves the mystery of the disappearing three-bagger.

I gathered stadium data from the Seamheads Ballparks Database.3 As a measure of the size of the ballpark, I used the distance, in feet, from home plate to center field (“center-field distance”). Although center-field distance is not a perfect indicator of a ballpark’s size, since there may be varying distances to left or right field, center-field distance sufficiently represents stadium size for purposes of this study. I only included ballparks from 1906 onwards, due to the lack of available dimensions from earlier fields. I then used R to analyze the dataset.

Early twentieth century ballparks in the NL and AL were a clutter of mismatched sizes, with some ballparks extending more than 500 feet to center field, such as the Huntington Avenue Grounds (530 feet), Exposition Park (515 feet), and Ebbets Field (507 feet), to name a few. Ballparks of this era also varied widely in terms of shape. One striking example is the New York Giants’ Polo Grounds, known for an elongated field shape.

As time passed, the size of ballfields grew increasingly homogenous, in part due to a rule implemented by both leagues in 1958 mandating a minimum centerfield distance of 400 feet.4 Enormous ballparks like the Huntington Avenue Grounds gradually disappeared; today, not one ballpark has a center-field distance exceeding 420 feet.

To illustrate how ballparks league-wide changed year to year, I found the mean and standard deviation for the center-field distance of every big-league ballpark in every year, from 1906 to 2019 (Figure 3).

This graph confirms that over the last one hundred years, ballparks have become increasingly homogenous in center-field distance, based on the following characteristics:

1. The negative slope of the solid line demonstrates that center-field walls in stadiums nationwide have moved closer to home plate as time passed.

2. The range of center-field distance among MLB ballparks at present—and in the last half century or so—is unmistakably smaller than the range in the early twentieth century, as shown by the smaller space between the dotted lines (plus/minus one standard deviation).

From this starting point, I will show that playing fields that are smaller and more uniform in size have directly resulted in greater percentages of home runs and correspondingly fewer triples. Closer fences increase the likelihood of deep fly balls and line drives going out of the park, and smaller playing fields offer less space in which the ball can roll around, giving the baserunner less time to reach third base.

SMALL-SAMPLE EXAMPLES THAT SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS

Initially, to test my assumptions, I explored three ballparks that underwent dimensional changes to determine if there was a change in triple rates. These anecdotal examples are a preface to the full hypothesis test that follows, which includes data from all ballparks whose size decreased after 1906. I first investigated one of the most iconic ballparks in baseball history: Fenway Park. The center-field distance was 468 feet in 1933, but shrunk to 389 feet before the 1934 season.

With this stadium change, triples changed from being hit 1.3% of at bats in 1933 to 0.9% of at bats in 1934. Notably, this would be the last change to the center-field dimensions for Fenway Park; maybe the Red Sox owners didn’t want to see the triple disappear completely!

In 1960, the center-field fence at windy Candlestick Park was 420 feet away from home plate. In 1961, that fence was moved ten feet closer to home plate. Like Fenway before it, Candlestick’s triple rate dropped off after the size change. The “Say Hey Kid” alone accounted for a portion of the swing: Mays smacked four triples at Candlestick in 1960 but zero in 1961, while seeing an upswing in homers, hitting 11 more home runs than the previous year, 9 of them at Candlestick.

Lastly, Minute Maid Park, home of the Houston Astros, had a well-known and unique feature, Tal’s Hill: a patch of grass that sloped upwards to a center field wall. Not only was Tal’s Hill a slope, but it also had a large flagpole just to the left of straightaway center, which made it a “triples heaven” as outfielders scrambled to track down hit balls. Did removing it after the 2016 season—and shortening the distance to the center field wall—diminish triples?

Yes. With a Tal’s Hill-less Minute Maid, the distance to center field shrank by 27 feet and as a result, the triples rate in 2017 was less than half that of the year before.

These initial results encouraged me to run a full hypothesis test on all of the post-1906 data.

HYPOTHESIS TESTS

To test the hypothesis statistically, I used not only the home team’s data (home runs and triples per at bat) but also the away team’s data at each ballpark, resulting in data by park for each year.

Then I filtered every year in which the center-field dimensions changed for a team. Since my hypothesis is that smaller ballparks decrease triple rates and increase home run rates, I collected extra-base-hit rates for the year the ballpark changed its center-field dimension, and the year prior to the change.

Then, I calculated the change in center-field distance, and gathered all the “negative” differences between the dimension for the year of change minus the dimension for the prior year. A negative difference would mean that the ballpark’s dimensions in the previous year were greater—in other words, smaller ballparks. I then took the means for the triple and home run rates for before and after the stadium change:

Average 3B/AB for year before change = 0.0093
Average 3B/AB for year after change = 0.0088

Average HR/AB for year before change = 0.0192
Average HR/AB for year after change = 0.0208

To calculate whether these differences are significant, I used a paired t-test with the following conditions:

H₀: Smaller center-field distance has no effect on triples per at bat (true difference in means = 0).6

H_a: Smaller center-field distance decreases the rate of triples per at bat (true difference in means < 0).

t = -2.5632

df = 141

p-value = 0.005709 < 0.025, reject H₀.

H₀: Smaller center-field distance has no effect on home runs per at bat (true difference in means = 0).

H_a: Smaller center-field distance increases the rate of home runs per at bat (true difference in means > 0).

t = 2.36

df = 141

p-value = 0.009823 < 0.025, reject H₀.

The two above hypothesis tests strongly support the alternative hypothesis. The sample size is large and the p-values are much lower than the significance level. We can conclude from these data what has been presumed for many years: smaller stadiums lead to a lower number of triples and a higher number of home runs.7

REGRESSION ANALYSIS

I also ran a regression model on all ballpark data to see the overall effect of center-field dimension on triples per at bat. By accounting for year and team in a multivariable regression model, I found that decreasing center field dimensions by one foot leads to an average decrease in triples per at bat of 0.47% with a p-value of < 0.001. While this seems like a small percentage, the maximum average league center field distance (429 feet) in 1923 against the average in 2019 (403 feet) predicts the change in center field dimension to be responsible for a 12% decrease out of the actual 65% decrease in that timespan—a weighty piece of the puzzle.

To illustrate, the same team from the same year plays in two different ballparks: one with a center-field distance of 430 feet and another with a center-field distance of 400 feet. If 15 triples are hit in 1000 at bats in the bigger ballpark, we would expect about 13 triples to be hit, in the same number of at bats, in the smaller ballpark.

CONCLUSION

Although this study has its shortcomings—such as quantifying stadium size with center-field distance, and ignoring other confounding variables (additional field characteristics, the baseball itself from year-to-year, etc.)—the hypothesis was strongly supported in a paired t-test and multivariable regression model: smaller ballparks are a significant factor contributing to the disappearance of the three-bagger. So if you happen to see a triple when you take in a game—whether on TV or in attendance at one of today’s cozier stadiums—consider yourself lucky! You’ve seen a rarity.8

Acknowledgments

A special thank you to Professor Jeremy Losak, Phil Birnbaum, Jonah Richards, Jonathan Schwartz, and the creators of the Seamheads Ballparks Database.

Sources

Collelo, Thomas. “Demise of the Triple,” The Baseball Research Journal, 18 (1989): 43–44.

Sports Reference LLC. Baseball-Reference.com—Major League Statistics and Information. Accessed September 30, 2022. https://www.baseball-reference.com.

https://github.com/theodoretobel/The-Mystery-of-the-Disappearing-Three-Bagger.

Notes

1. Lawrence S. Ritter. The Glory of Their Times. (Vintage Books, 1985), 33.

2. There have been a variety baseball statisticians and savants such as Bill James and Tom Tango who have written about “park factor,” an all-encompassing statistic of a ballpark’s effect on outcomes. However, I have yet to find an analysis on the direct effect of dimension changes on extra base hit rates.

3. Seamheads.com Ballparks Database. Accessed September 30, 2022. https://www.seamheads.com/ballparks/index.php.

4. Curiously, a handful of present-day ballparks defy the MLB minimum distance rule, maintaining a center-field distance of less than 400 feet (exactly four as of 2019: Fenway Park, PNC Park, Petco Park, and Oracle Park). These smaller ballparks fall into two categories: those that were “grandfathered” in, and those that simply break the rule. For example, Fenway Park is a grandfathered ballpark, as its last reconstruction of the center-field distance was in 1936 (390 feet), 22 years before the MLB rule was implemented. PNC Park of the Pittsburgh Pirates is an example of a rulebreaker. Although constructed after the institution of the minimum center-field distance rule, PNC’s center-field distance is 399 feet.

5. “Bonferroni Correction.” Wolfram MathWorld. Accessed September 30, 2022. https://mathworld.wolfram.com/BonferroniCorrection.html.

6. Note that the true difference in means is the previous year rate minus the change year rate—thus, if the rate of triples was greater in the previous year than the change year (a decrease), then the true difference in means <0.

7. The differences in each sample (home runs and triples) were checked for normality with a Q-Q plot and the distribution was proven to meet the assumptions of the paired t-test.

8. While collecting data for this study on triples, I stumbled across the following triple of fun facts: 1) The highest rate of triples at a stadium in one year was at 1912 Forbes Field. 2) The last person to hit four triples in a game was Bill Joyce in 1897. 3) Evan Gattis hit eleven triples in 2015—and only 12 total triples in his career.

A generally accepted narrative of the early days of baseball integration is that White pitchers deliberately threw at Black batters. According to Ken Burns’ Baseball, when Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier, “Pitchers threw at his head.”1 His counterpart in the American League, Larry Doby, stated, “I was knocked down in many games. I was hit more by pitched balls than any player of equal power in the league.”2

There exists some documentation to support these claims. The most widely publicized was a 1947 incident where Philadelphia Phillies manager Ben Chapman instructed his pitchers when to throw at Robinson.3 Likewise, pitcher Hank Wyse confirmed that Cubs pitchers had standing orders to knock Robinson down. “Paul Erickson knocked him down four times…”4

Consistent with this directive, in the film 42, Pirates pitcher Fritz Ostermueller is depicted as both verbally abusing and deliberately throwing at Robinson.5 Years later, one of Ostermueller’s teammates confirmed the pitcher’s intentions.6 Unfortunately, verbal confirmation of these incidents is sparse and mostly confined to the 1947 season. However, we can undertake a statistical study rather than rely on anecdotes.

The ranking of batters by the number of times hit per season 1947–56 reveals evidence to support the narrative. A Black player ranked first or second in either the AL or NL hit by pitch category 16 times from 1947 through 1956. A brief review of those who ranked in the top ten in both leagues on the hit-by-pitch leaderboard reveals a disproportionate share of Black players, as well. Although representing only slightly over four percent of the total player population, out of the top ten percent of players being hit by pitch, Black players made up over 16 percent of that group.

PRIOR RESEARCH

A search for quantitative analysis of pitchers intentionally throwing at Black batters produced minimal results. Little seems to have been done in this area, with one recent exception. In April 2020, Bryce Kanago and David George Surdam published a study titled “Intimidation, Discrimination, and Retaliation: Hit-by-Pitches during the Integration of Major League Baseball.”7 Their work analyzes AL and NL batters hit by pitchers from 1947 through 1956.

They attempted to determine if Black batters were hit more often because of their superior performance rather than the color of their skin. Using advanced regression analysis, Kanago and Surdam adjusted for performance, but still found that differences exist between Black and White batters in the likelihood of being hit by a pitch. They also found that superior-performing Black players are more likely to be hit than superior-performing White players.

While this one study supported the premise that Black batters were targeted in the early days of baseball integration, more research is needed in this area. The Kanago and Surdam study is restricted to the first ten years of baseball integration when the percentage of Black players remained small, partially due to racial quotas.8 In the final year of their study, 1956, there were still only 25 batters in their research calculations. For statistical purposes, larger sample sizes are always preferred.

Besides the need for further confirming research, other important questions remain regarding White pitchers throwing at Black batters. If widespread targeting did happen, how long did it last? Was the practice curtailed as more Black players entered the leagues? This study will explore the answers to these questions by examining data covering a longer time period. For analytical purposes, it will extend the range of study to cover the first two decades after integration, from 1947 through 1966. Likewise, this study will attempt to address the question of small sample sizes in the early years of baseball integration.

METHODOLOGY

Within this study, the vital statistic is this: times hit by pitched ball (HBP). Whether a pitcher deliberately threw at a batter is a subjective decision for which no data exist. If certain players were deliberately targeted, then it is logical that those same players would ultimately be more likely to be hit by pitches. Certain batters are hit more frequently than others for various reasons, such as crowding the plate or deliberately diving into pitches.

However, this analysis assumes that those characteristics would be evenly distributed across both White and Black players. Adopting these assumptions, the likelihood that a Black player was targeted can be measured by calculating the number of times batters were hit relative to the number of times they came to bat.

For the purposes of this study, only players who had 200 or more plate appearances in a single season were considered. Establishing this thresh-old excludes observations which are not representative of a regular player. These overall data are readily available in Baseball-Reference.com, both by individual player and aggregated into totals by league.

The first obstacle was the challenge of separating the data into racial categories. Standard baseball statistical resources do not identify players by race. Fortunately, an earlier research project had faced and overcome the same problem. In his pioneering study, “The Effects of Integration, 1947–1986,” Mark Armour assembled a list of Black major league players by year.9 This study uses that list as the final authority on identifying Black players. Also for purposes of this study, “White” was defined as any non-Black player, including those of Latino, American Indian, and Mexican descent.

The next step was to list and total both the number of plate appearances (PAs) and the number of HBPs for each player making 200 or more plate appearances by year. Because of the difficulty in producing the data, no distinction was made regarding which plate appearances were against Black pitchers versus White pitchers. As with Black batters, there were relatively few Black pitchers in the first two decades of baseball integration covered by the study. A comparison of the White and Black groups was made by calculating the average of total plate appearances divided by total HBPs.

INITIAL RESULTS

The results for each of the first 10 years studied showed that Black batters were hit by pitches more frequently than their White counterparts. The average number of plate appearances per HBP was lower for Black batters. For example, in 1950 White batters were hit by a pitch once every 219 plate appearances. For Black players, this number was every 112 times, or nearly twice as often. Figure 1 shows these results for the first five years of baseball integration.

One would expect that as the presence of Black players became more accepted, pitchers would throw at them less often. If so, the differences in average plate appearances per HBP between the two groups would diminish. Figure 2 shows that to be the case over twenty years, with the annual difference between year one and year ten being greater in the first decade than in the second.

In the second decade the difference between White and Black is narrower, although the rates fluctuate by year. Nevertheless, there is no single year in the entire 20 years where Black players are hit less often than White ones. Even in the final year of 1966, the difference between the two groups widens again—White: 190 PA, Black:150 PA.

VALIDITY TESTING

While collecting and compiling the data for this study, one major concern regarding the validity of its conclusions stood out. For the first ten years, the total number of Black players was very small relative to the total number of White players. In 1947, 170 White players and one Black player—Jackie Robinson—met the 200 plate appearances criterion. The number of Black players in Jackie’s wake increased year by year, but quite slowly. For example, in 1953 there were still only 11 Black players who came to bat at least 200 times.

Figure 3 shows that although the number of black batters with over 200 ABs grew steadily over that first decade, the number was still below 25 batters in 1956.

With the small population sizes of the Black players, the data are potentially subject to distortions due to outliers or other variables such as those suggested by Kanago and Surdam in their 2020 study. One or two players could possibly distort the results. In statistical terms this does not result in a normal distribution. For example, Minnie Miñoso, a Black player who ranks number eleven in all-time HBPs, first qualified for the study group in 1951 when there were only nine other Black players with 200 PAs. In that year he was hit by pitches a league-leading 16 times. He averaged 17 over the next six years.

It is not as if there weren’t White counterparts to Miñoso. For example, in that same year (1951), Nellie Fox was hit by 14 pitches. However, his total was spread over a much larger distribution of White players. It should be noted that Kanago and Surdam attempted to adjust for players with high hit-by-pitch numbers by excluding them from their analysis.

With the small number of Black batters, the use of standard statistical testing methodologies is problematic. A common rule of thumb among statisticians, following the Central Limit Theorem, is that sample sizes should be at least 30 or more.10 The reaching of this minimum threshold increases the likelihood that the sample will approach a normal distribution. In our case, this can prevent the possibility that players like Miñoso can distort the findings.

Because of the small number of Black players, especially in the early decade, this study avoided statistical testing for single seasons. Instead, it aggregated data for the first ten years into one larger period. The data for all ten seasons were aggregated in order to produce a sample size of Black players of at least 30 in total. This method showed that across all ten seasons there were a total of 34 Black players that had at least one season where they achieved 200 or more plate appearances. This total population of Black players was used as the sample. To produce an equivalent comparative group, 34 White players were randomly selected from a pool of 435 eligible White players from the same ten year period.

To test the hypothesis as to whether there is a significant difference between the two groups, the Z Test for Difference of Proportions was selected.11 This tool allows us to conduct a null hypothesis test to determine whether the difference between two proportions is statistically significant. The null hypothesis theorizes that there is no difference between the two groups. If the null hypothesis is rejected, then there is a statistically significant difference in the two groups. In our case the proportions are calculated as follows:

Total plate appearances for each group were surprisingly close in number: Black: 58,864, White: 54,107. Within the actual formula, these numbers were used as the sample size. For Black players, the calculated proportion was .0086; for the White sample, it was .00462. After inputting these values into the Z test formula, the result is a minute p-value of .0001%. For the 95 percent confidence interval all p-values below 5% indicates a rejection of the null hypothesis. Even with a 99% confidence level, where p-values need to fall below 1%, the null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, in our case, there is a statistically significant difference between the two groups being hit by pitched balls during the ten-year period of 1947 through 1956.

Testing or analysis of the next ten years (1957–66) is more problematic. As Figure 2 illustrates, the difference in frequency of HBPs between the two groups narrowed, although there was no consistent trend. The number of Black batters finally did reach the statistical testing milestone of 30 in 1958. The total was a robust 66 in 1966. Thus, for this ten year period, the data were not aggregated. Z tests for Difference in Pro-portions were conducted for each of these ten seasons. Table 1 shows the results.

Over this second decade of baseball integration, the null hypothesis was rejected five times and accepted five times. Additionally, there was no linear trend across this time span. In other words, there does not appear to be a consistent, clear difference between White and Black players in terms of the likelihood of being hit by a pitch. It is still worth noting that for this second decade, just as in the first, the yearly rate at which Black batters were hit by pitches always exceeded that of White batters.

CONCLUSIONS

The raw numbers and statistical testing do support the idea that White pitchers deliberately threw at Black batters in the first decade of baseball integration (1947–56). This phenomenon appears not to be just something that was directed at the few initial pioneers of integration; it lasted for several years. Over the first decade of integration, Black batters were nearly twice as likely to be hit by a pitch as White batters. That there was a difference between the groups was unequivocal, and tested out statistically at the 99 percent confidence level.

However, as speculated, when baseball integration extended into a second decade, it is less clear that White pitchers deliberately threw at Black batters. When the percentage of Black players became larger, statistically significant differences between the two groups were inconsistent. This could be attributable to either larger sample sizes or that discrimination by White pitchers against Black batters became less prevalent. Despite this conclusion, Black batters were still hit by pitches more frequently than White batters in every season of the study period from 1947 through 1966. Further study is needed to determine if or when this latter phenomenon ended.

Acknowledgments

The following two faculty members of Wayne State University, Detroit, contributed to this study through their advice and suggestions: Ty Partridge, PhD Associate Professor, Director, Research Analysis and Design Unit Department of Psychology and David Merolla, PhD, Associate Professor and Chair Department of Sociology.

Notes

1. “Inning 6.” Baseball, created by Ken Burns, National Endowment for the Humanities, 1994.

2. Jackie Robinson, Baseball Has Done It (Philadelphia & New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1964), 63.

3. Brian Carroll, When to Stop the Cheering? (Abingdon, England: Rutledge, 2006), 162–63.

4. David Falkner, Great Time Coming (Simon & Schuster: New York, 1995), 165.

5. Brian Helgeland (Director). (2013). 42 (Film) Legendary Pictures.

6. Bruce Markusen, “Cooperstown Confidential: What really happened with Fritz Ostermueller and Jackie Robinson,” The Hardball Times, May 10, 2013, https://tht.fangraphs.com/cooperstown-confidential-what-really-happened-with-fritz-ostermueller-and-j.

7. Bryce Kango and David George Surdam, “Intimidation, Discrimination, and Retaliation: Hit-by-Pitches during the Integration of Major League Baseball,” Atlantic Economic Journal, 48(1), 67–85.

8. Lee Lowenfish, “The Rise of Baseball’s Racial Quota System in the 1950s,” Nine, Volume 16, No. 2, (Spring 2008}, 52.

9. Mark Armour, “The Effects of Integration, 1947–1986.” SABR Baseball Research Journal, Volume 36 (2007).

10. “Why is the minimum sample size 30?” Treehozz, last updated May 6, 2020. https://treehozz.com/why-is-theminimum-sample-size-30

11. Deborah A. Rumsey, “How to Estimate the Difference between Two Proportions,” dummies, https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-estimate-the-difference-between-two-proportions.

Data visualization is also a science, using charts and graphs to supplement and clarify quantitative or qualitative information. Alberto Cairo, another leading writer and teacher of data visualization, defines this clarification element as “any kind of visual representation of information designed to enable communication, analysis, discovery, [and] exploration.”2

Baseball’s long history and devotion to record-keeping make it highly suitable for data visualization. More than any other sport, baseball has a remarkably rich and consistent body of statistical knowledge, dating as far back as 1869 with the Cincinnati Red Stockings, the first fully professional team that openly paid all its players.3

In comparison, the National Football League began in 1920, and the National Hockey League in 1917. While both those leagues have their own bodies of statistics, they are not nearly as extensive as the century and a half of data collected on professional baseball. The baseball database is robust enough that certain measures like wins above replacement (WAR) and on-base plus slugging average (OPS) can be calculated for players who were active decades before those measures came to be. At the same time, a review of baseball research shows a greater emphasis on creating mathematical and statistical models for assessing and predicting competitive results than on visualizing them.

While this statistical research is inherently valuable, for readers without statistical or quantitative backgrounds, the conclusions are less clear and understandable than they could be if presented in a compelling and visual way, as a supplement of—not a substitute for—the traditional tools of statistical analysis.

Baseball data have tended to be quantitative, beginning with the box score first developed in the 1840s and 50s for amateur players in the New York City area, with some efforts to improve on it to show the running score.4 Data visualization is also a tool for analyzing and presenting qualitative information and relationships, such as the development of the layout of the baseball diamond, in a way that adds a layer of visual and even literal interaction with the data.5 Most quantitative baseball research tends to focus on statistical insight and ranking, creating a need in today’s fast-moving visual media environment, to use data visualization to communicate, discuss, and share those insights more widely and with new audiences.

A WALK THROUGH THE DEVELOPING PRACTICE OF DATA VISUALIZATION

Data visualization offers a fundamentally unique way of seeing data generally, and baseball particularly, in a way that lends itself well to today’s highly visual environment. Visualizing data is an essential tool to make findings more accessible to audiences. While the practice may be new to some, it is not new, with antecedents that run from the most ancient ways of recording information up to the present day.

While the practice of data visualization is too broad in scope to discuss fully here, there are several types of visualizations, among many that are possible, that baseball researchers can (and in some instances have) used.6 Graphics standing for numbers are incredibly ancient. Tally sticks, with notches cut on bones to denote numbers, have been discovered in caves that are 30,000 or more years old. Cuneiform tablets nearly 5,000 years old account for barley harvests.7

More recently, the modern practice of data visualization began to appear in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe, with the work of Edward Playfair, Charles Joseph Minard, and William Herschel. Playfair was arguably the first data visualizer, creating a collection of infographics that later became the Commercial and Political Atlas in 1785. This work would be easily recognizable today, showing international trade volumes, national accounts, and other economic data for European countries. (A Scot, Playfair focused his work on the United Kingdom and other European powers.)8

There is a direct line from Playfair’s “Linear Chronology, Exhibiting the Revenues, Expenditure, Debt, Price of Stocks, and Bread from 1770 to 1824” and Edward Tufte’s set of sparklines, or line graphs, showing the competitive landscape and pennant races across all six MLB divisions during the 2001 season.10 Line graphs are useful for showing progress over time; for example, whether batting averages or other measures have increased over a period or showing a team’s progress over a full season.

Mapping techniques are useful for showing where events occur. Geographical maps date from as long ago as 6200 B.C. in Turkey, but other types of mapping are useful for baseball research, in particular coordinate mapping that creates scatterplots mapped on two axes. Scatterplots are common across disciplines. Francis Galton, in 1874, used a correlation diagram (essentially a scatterplot) to show a relationship between head circumference and height in people whom he observed. Likewise, in astronomy, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram plots the brightness of stars against their temperature for purposes of classification.11

In baseball, spray charts—a form of geographic mapping—show the parts of the field that players successfully reach with a batted ball. Similarly, in a 2019 study, the locations of fan injuries in major league baseball stadiums were mapped, resulting in MLB and the affiliated minor leagues expanding the use of protective netting in ballparks.13 Mapping data points along two dimensions in a scatterplot is also a useful way to show relationships between player statistics.

DATA VISUALIZATION IN PRACTICE FOR BASEBALL RESEARCH

We operate under a few assumptions. Firstly, the value of data visualization lies less in showing right or wrong answers and more in using visual tools to present that information and allow the audience to make sense of it. The goal is less about providing answers than guiding the questions to be asked. As such, a good data visualization can lead an audience towards a particular finding, but it can also highlight inconsistencies or details that are worth discussing.

Secondly, data visualization is tool-agnostic, meaning that similar principles apply no matter what tools are used to produce the visual. It is possible to create outstanding visuals using no more than a pencil and paper. This paper will not recommend any particular software application for data visualization, though we will mention a few. There are many available, both free via open source and through purchase or subscription. Depending on a researcher’s preferences and capabilities, a full toolbox of applications could include off-the-shelf packages like Microsoft Power BI, Qlik, or Tableau, or if one prefers coding tools, RStudio, Python, or many others. Tradeoffs exist between cost and usability out of the box; while open source applications like RStudio and Python are free, they require more time to learn and master.

This paper includes examples created in Tableau because it is widely available. The free version, Tableau Public, is a useful platform for building and sharing visualizations thanks to its availability as a free tool and relative ease of use, particularly for those who are not familiar with coding languages and tools like RStudio and Python.

Finally, a note about color. Modern data visualizations are often designed to be shown and interacted with in full color on computer screens. In published journals, where black and white or greyscale are needed, similar principles apply where gradations of black and white are valuable for showing differences. The visualizations in this paper appear in black and white.14

A BASEBALL CASE STUDY: WAS THE 2020 MLB SEASON AN OUTLIER?

For the case example, the first step defines the problem to be addressed and the story to tell. The most effective visualizations include a narrative, which can be as simple as a situation/action/result framework. What was the situation that existed, what did the research or analysis try to show, and what were the conclusions or outcomes? Ideally, data visualization exists not for its own sake, but rather aims to show an insight or finding that can be a basis for discussion, action, or further analysis.

In this case, the visualization focuses on the 2020 baseball season, which was limited to 60 games due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The normal spring training period was cut off in mid-March and resumed in abbreviated fashion for a July 23 regular season start. As a result of the truncated spring training and season, researchers could wonder if the offensive results and records set during the short 2020 season were in line with recent seasons. The focus for this analysis is therefore on the five most recent seasons, from 2017 through 2021, including the 2020 campaign.

METHODOLOGY

Tableau Public, as described above, was chosen as the application for this analysis. The data source is Stathead, a searchable online archive of baseball statistics served by Sports Reference.15 Key offensive statistics including hits (H), home runs (HR), on base average (OBP), and slugging average (SLG) were collected for batters qualifying for batting titles during the 2017 through 2021 Major League Baseball seasons. (Qualifying batters were defined per MLB standards as logging a minimum of 3.1 plate appearances per team game, or 502 for the 2017–19 and 2021 seasons and 186 for the 2020 season.) Data were selected for the parameters above, exported into a .csv file, saved as a Google Sheets file, and imported into Tableau Public using the application’s proprietary Google data import tool.

ANALYSIS

The next steps will show whether the 2020 season was in fact different from the other four, using statistical analysis but also using data visualization to clarify and contextualize these points, and set up a basis for discussion. Two scatterplots will each plot two pairs of key offensive statistics against each other. The first pair are hits versus home runs, which are two “counting” statistics that are clearly changed by the length of the season, and the second pair are OPS and SLG, which are “rate” statistics that are more easily comparable across normal seasons, but a shorter season like 2020 will likely produce more outliers.

The analysis begins with a simple scatterplot showing hits (on the x axis) versus home runs (on the y axis). Each data point stands for a single season between 2017 and 2021 for a qualified batter. Figure 1 shows the average figures, and the 95 percent confidence interval, through the dark grey line and light grey shading, respectively.

The ”constellation” of squares in the lower left-hand corner represents the 2020 season, with substantially lower hit and home run totals. In that season, hits totaled from 32 to 79, compared to between 95 and 213 hits for the other analyzed seasons. Home runs totaled between 8 and 22 for 2020, and 4 and 59 for the other years. The trend lines in the same shades as the data points illustrate the linear regressions describing the model. They will also be analyzed statistically, but for purposes of the data visualization, it is useful to note that the lines are of different slopes, and different y-intercepts, lower for the 2020 season than the other four. This finding is not surprising, since the season was only about one third the length of a typical one.

Turning to the OBP versus SLG analysis (Figure 2), the scatterplot featuring OBP on the X axis and SLG on the Y axis is below. This analysis shows even more interesting findings: a convergence of all the data points around a single origin, and virtually identical regression lines.

It’s interesting to note that the most extreme data points–at the high and low ends of the X and Y axes–are for the 2020 season, which accounts for greater variability across a smaller number of games. When one analyzes the data statistically, the regression line, R2 measure (which shows the degree of variability accounted for by the model, and the P value (which shows the statistical significance) are in Table 1.

For hits and home runs (Figure 3), the analysis shows that there is not much of a relationship between the 2020 season and the others. The R2 values are small, less than 0.05 and 0.03 for the 2020 and other seasons, suggesting that the simple regression model does not account for much of the variability between hits and home runs. (The P values, however, do show that the findings are statistically significant, especially in the case of the other four years.)

For on-base and slugging averages, these data indicate that the seasons are similar, if not virtually identical. The slopes are within 0.003 of each other, the intercepts within 0.15 of each other, and the R2 are both nearly 0.41. Again, looking at the visualization itself is insightful, because it shows how aligned the two sets of statistics are.

Finally, the power of the data visualization comes through in Figure 3 when it is edited to show each year in succession, denoted by data points represented by different shapes for each season between 2017 and 2021, for hits versus home runs and OBP versus SLG respectively. The charts are slightly more complex, but further show that, particularly for averages, the 2020 season was not significantly different from the other four between 2017 and 2021.

Rather than show a regression line for each season in the chart above, for clarity and simplicity, only the overall regression line is shown, along with the 95 percent confidence interval. For the seasonal analysis, the linear regressions, R2 values, and P values for each season are shown in Tables 2 and 3.

From the visualizations, in terms of absolute statistics (hits and home runs), 2020 was an outlier for the fact of its much shorter length, which is intuitive. More comforting, given baseball’s interest in keeping the game’s essential elements, the analysis of important averages like OBP and SLG seem to show that despite the season’s unusually short length, batters achieved the expected level of excellence in 2020. The visualization shows that those elements of performance were consistent with other recent seasons.

In data visualization, the ability to see those similarities or differences, in a way that can’t be intuited merely from reading the numbers, is an important feature. The individual numbers are of course still there: much as a fan can pore over numbers or pull old baseball cards from a deck, a researcher can examine the visualization online and mouse over each data point to see which players they stand for, including the relevant statistics for each player, the teams that they played on—or examine the regression lines to see the data for themselves.

SUGGESTIONS FOR INCORPORATING DATA VISUALIZATION INTO BASEBALL RESEARCH PRACTICE

This paper is meant as the beginning, not the end, of a discussion on how to incorporate principles of data visualization into baseball research. Further, the author’s intention is not to be proscriptive about the kinds of ideas or visual forms to use, but rather to encourage baseball researchers to include visualizations as part of their ongoing work to analyze, predict, categorize, and suggest developments in the analysis of baseball.

Visualization is both the first and last mile of research. At the beginning of a research project, it can help the researcher identify and prioritize truly relevant or interesting areas to examine more closely. At the end of the process, through effective visuals, the researcher can make a set of findings relevant, clear, and understandable for an audience that is unfamiliar with statistics or quantitative research. In today’s digital and visually rich research environment, a tremendous volume of ideas can be shared on online platforms and through social media. In a world where a tweet can only hold a maximum of 280 characters, visuals become essential.

Further, using an interactive visual—where the reader or viewer may interact with multilayered data, choosing and analyzing specific data points—gives readers a personal experience with the information that they are absorbing. The data become more relatable and actionable, and easier to share across disciplines. Most essentially, the value lies in communicating and interacting with others about research findings; not so much to prove right or wrong answers, but to encourage exploration of the data and spur discussion to its own end.

ADAM KORENGOLD has been a SABR member since 2020. He is a research and data visualization analyst, manager, and teacher. He is an Analytics Lead at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland, and an adjunct professor of data visualization in the graduate open studies program at the Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore, Maryland. He has also presented on the relationship between baseball card design and contemporary art and design trends to SABR chapters.

Notes

1. Alli Torban Design Home Page, www.allitorban.com (Accessed January 2, 2022).

2. Alberto Cairo, The Truthful Art (San Francisco: New Riders, 2016), 28.

3. Howard Wilkinson, “The 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings: The Team that ‘Made Baseball Famous,’” WXVU Radio, Cincinnati, OH, February 22, 2019 (accessed January 8, 2022): https://www.wvxu.org/sports/2019-02-22/the-1869-red-stockings-the-team-that-made-baseball-famous.

4. Edward Tufte, Seeing with Fresh Eyes: Meaning Space Data Truth (Cheshire, Connecticut; Graphics Press, 2020),

5. Tom Shieber, “The Evolution of the Baseball Diamond: Perfection Came Slowly,” SABR 50 At 50: The Society for American Baseball Research’s Fifty Most Essential Contributions to the Game (Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2020), 186–206.

6. Anna and Mark Vital, The Visualization Universe, at www.visualizatio-nuniverse.com (Accessed January 1, 2022).

7. Michael Friendly and Howard Wainer. A History of Data Visualization & Graphic Communication (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2021), 11–13.

8. Murray Dick, The Infographic: A History of Data Graphics in News and Communications (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2020), 44–55.

9. Sachs, Jonathan. “1786/1801: William Playfair, Statistical Graphics, and the Meaning of an Event.” BranchCollective.org (accessed October 14, 2022).

10. Edward Tufte, The Visual Display of Quantitative Information 2nd ed., Chesire, CT, Graphics Press, 2001), 174.

11. Friendly and Wainer, 121–58.

12. “Pulsating Variable Stars and the Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) Diagram.) Chandra X-Ray Observatory, (accessed October 15, 2022): https://chandra.harvard.edu/edu/formal/variable_stars/bg_info.html.

13. Michelle Tak et.al. “Foul balls hurt hundreds of fans at MLB ballparks. See where your team stands on netting.” NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/we-re-going-need-bigger-net-foul-balls-hurt-hundreds-n1060291, October 1, 2019 (accessed January 1, 2022).

14. As mentioned in the text, Tableau Public is a free tool produced by Tableau, a division of Salesforce.com and available at www.public.tableau.com. To view the visualizations in this paper, visit https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/adam.s.korengold/viz/Wasthe2020SeasonUnusualGreyscale/Figure3HitsandHomeRunsYearByYear2017-2021QualifiedBatters.

15. Stathead Baseball, https://stathead.com/baseball/season_finder.cgi?type=b (Accessed December 26, 2021).

After the 2020 season, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said, “I think the players like it. I think it’s really good from a safety and health perspective that keeps us from putting players in situations where they’re out there too long or in positions they’re not used to playing.”2 The rule was continued in 2021 and 2022.3

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a methodology that shows how a rule change—such as the runner on second to start extra innings—can be analyzed without having to run the experiment in actual games. The modified rule is intended to increase scoring, resulting in fewer ties after each extra inning, thereby ending the game sooner. We use conditional probabilities to predict how many extra innings would have been played under the modified rules in 2019. We also examine how many innings are predicted by our methodology under the new rule and compare our predicted results to what actually occurred in 2021.

We use run-scoring probabilities with the modified rules to analyze the probabilities of the number of innings that would be played out under the pre-2020 rules versus the modified rules. Our methodology predicts that under the modified rules approximately 54% more games would end in 10 innings instead of going longer. Results from 2021 show that actual games played according to the modified rules end in a similar length to what our methodology predicts.

In 2020 and 2021, at the start of an extra inning, the player who precedes the leadoff batter that inning in the batting order starts at second and the inning is played out. In this paper we use the 2019 MLB runscoring environment to predict scoring in extra innings to analyze how quickly games would have ended compared to how long they actual went. We then use the methodology on 2021 data where games were played under the modified rules. Our methodology predicts an outcome similar to what actually occurred.

Proponents of the modified rule argue that fans would be more likely to stay for the end of a game if it was expected to be shorter. Opponents of the rule object to the different rules for an extra inning on purity grounds and argue that part of the fun of the game is that it might go on for a long time. In 2019, approximately 9% of MLB games went to extra innings and the average extra inning game lasted 11.3 innings.4 In 2021, 9% of MLB games also went to extra innings, but they averaged only 10.3 innings.

We will examine how much shorter (or longer) a game would go if the inning starts with a runner on second. This methodology could be used to examine alternative rule proposals as well. If MLB wanted to predict the change in innings played with a runner on third, or first and second with one out, this methodology could also be used.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology of the paper is to use the probabilities from the past season data to investigate the effect of a modified rule without having to actually run the experiment. We can analyze prior season MLB play-by-play data to calculate the probability of scoring 0, 1, 2, and so on runs in an inning. In extra innings, when one team scores a different number than their opponent, the game is over. For example, if the probability of scoring 0 runs is 60%, then the probability of both teams scoring 0 runs is 60% ! 60%=36%. If the probability of scoring 1 run in an inning for both teams is 20%, then the probability of the game continuing because each team scored 1 run is 20% ! 20%=4%. We can add up the probabilities of scoring the same number of runs to determine the probability of the game continuing. This assumes that scoring by the two teams in an inning is independent. We show that it is independent.

The following equation shows the probability of a game continuing after an extra inning:

There are 24 base/out states that can occur in the game of baseball. A typical inning starts with nobody on and nobody out, but as the inning progresses, the state changes. For example, the bases could be loaded with no outs, one out, or two outs. The inning ends when three outs occur. It is common to calculate the number of runs expected based on the base/out state. For example, with a runner on first and nobody out, we can calculate the change in run expectancy for strategies like sacrifice bunting and stealing.

In the modified rules extra inning scenario, we can use the 24 base/out states to determine the probability of scoring different numbers of runs given that a runner starts on second base with no outs. In fact, we can analyze many different modified rules this way (such as runners on first and second with one out, etc.). We can compare the probabilities of the game continuing under the modified rules scenario with the traditional baseball rules to determine the difference in probabilities for the length of the game.

Retrosheet data from 2019 are used to determine how many runs are scored in a typical inning, along with the probability of scoring one run and the probability of scoring additional runs. We also examine whether scoring in an inning by two teams is independent. Using the typical run-scoring environment, we calculate the probabilities of scoring the same number of runs from each extra inning going forward. When the home team scores a different number of runs, the game is deemed to be over. We calculate the probability of the inning ending based on the scoring environment. We compare the probability of an inning ending under modified rules to the probability under traditional rules.

DATA

We used the Retrosheet 2019 and 2021 play-by-play data to get the most recent run-scoring environment for our analysis. We do not show results from the 2020 season, which was shortened to 60 games due to the pandemic, but the results are consistent with our methodology.

Table 1 lists the number of extra-inning games in 2019 by the number of innings played. The 208 extra inning games in 2019 represented approximately 9% of all games played. Of those games that went extra innings, 91 finished in the tenth inning (approximately 44%). The remaining 117 are the most interesting for the purpose of this study, because we want to study the extent to which the extra inning rule would shorten those games.

In 2021, 216 games went to extra innings. For the purposes of this study, we only count a game as going to extra innings if it went beyond 9 innings and limit our sample to games that went 10 innings or more. In 2021, both games of double headers were only 7 innings, not 9. If they went 8 or 9 innings, they were not counted as “extra innings” in this study.

The 117 games that went beyond 10 innings in 2019 represented about 4 games per team or 5% of a team’s 81 home games. If a fan at one of those games decided to go home because the prospect of a long contest was unappealing, the team would experience an inherent financial impact if that fan was discouraged from attending future games. Additionally, teams have to cover pitching and playing for all the additional innings. A long contest might require a team to burn through a lot of pitchers, which would affect the team for many games to come.

In 2019 the San Francisco Giants played 16 extra-inning games, totaling 54 extra innings during the season (the most in MLB), while the Chicago White Sox played 8 games, for a total of 19 extra innings (the least in MLB).5 Thus, the Giants had to come up with 35 innings-worth of pitching (almost four regular-length games) more than the White Sox, a considerable strain on the Giants’ pitching staff.

In 2021, with modified rules, the Minnesota Twins played the most extra-inning games with 21, whereas the Los Angeles Dodgers played the most extra innings with 30. Half the teams in 2019 played more extra innings with traditional rules than the Dodgers played in 2021 with modified rules.

ANALYSIS

The first step in analyzing the modified extra-inning rule is to examine the current scoring environment. Table 2 lists the pertinent data for the 2019 season. The first two columns list the number of times the visiting team scored 0–11 runs in an inning. The third column lists how many times the home team scored the same number of runs in the same inning as the visiting team, and the fourth column shows how many times the home team scored a different number of runs.

Teams scored the same number of runs in an inning 54% of the time and a different number 46% of the time. For example, if the visiting team scored seven or more runs, the home team never scored the same number of runs as the visiting team. The most common number of runs scored by the visiting team was zero. Seventy-two percent of the time when the visitor scored zero runs, the home team also scored zero runs. However, if the visitor scored one run, the home team responded with one only 14% of the time. Probabilities drop significantly as additional runs are scored by the visitor.

We tested to see if there is a correlation between runs in the same inning. We find that there is a 0.009 correlation in scoring the same number of runs in the same inning by both teams. For the purposes of this paper, we treat scoring within an inning as independent. In other words, the runs scored by the visitor does not affect the number of runs that will be scored by the home team.

According to Table 2, the most common outcome in an inning is for both teams to score zero runs. This occurs 51% of the time. Increasing the probability of scoring by the teams (up to a certain point) is likely to make the teams score a different number of runs, which would end the extra-inning game.

RUN EXPECTANCY

Analytically-inclined baseball analysts commonly view the game as a Markov chain. A normal inning starts with nobody on and nobody out. The game progresses to new states after each batter. If the leadoff batter hits a home run, the state remains at nobody on and no-body out. If the batter strikes out, the state goes to nobody on and one out, while a single changes the state to a runner on first and no outs. The inning continues until the absorbing state of three outs. Table 3 lists the expected number of runs that will score based on each of the 24 base/out states using the Retrosheet play-by-play data.

In 2019, in the normal scoring environment of no outs and nobody on base, 0.53 runs are expected to be scored by the batting team. Under the new extra innings scenario, 1.17 runs are expected if a runner starts on second with nobody out. The run expectancy is increased, but it is increased for both teams. We need to find out the probability of scoring a specific number of runs—namely, the probability of scoring 0, 1, 2, and so on runs.

Table 4 lists the expected probability of scoring one or more runs for the rest of the inning based on each of the 24 base/out states. The probability of scoring a run from the traditional nobody on and nobody out state is 0.29, but if the inning starts with a runner on second and nobody out, the probability of scoring one or more runs jumps to 0.61.6

Table 5 compares the probability of scoring 0–7 runs in an inning under traditional baseball rules (i.e., nobody on, nobody out) and the probability of scoring 0–7 runs under the modified rules (i.e., starting with a runner on second base). The probability of scoring more than seven runs in an inning is negligible. The table also lists the probability of the inning continuing, which occurs when both teams score the same number of runs. For example, under traditional rules, each team has a 71% chance of scoring zero runs, and there is a 50.6% chance that they will both score zero runs. Under modified rules, there is a 39.4% chance that each team will score zero runs and only a 15.6 % chance that they will both score zero runs.

The total probability of both teams scoring the same number of runs under traditional rules is 53.5%, whereas the total probability of both teams scoring the same number of runs under modified rules is 28.3%. This suggests that 53.5% of games will continue after the 10th inning under traditional rules, while only 28.3% will continue under modified rules. We assume that scoring is also independent across innings. This means that 53.5% ! 53.5%=28.6% of extra innings games will go at least 12 innings under traditional rules, while 28.3% x 28.3%=8.0% of extra innings games with modified rules will go at least 12 innings.

Table 6 breaks out the extra innings games in 2019 by innings along with the number predicted from the 2019 scoring environment and the number predicted based on the modified extra innings rules. In 2019, there were 478 extra innings played. Based on the average scoring environment in 2019, we would predict that there should have been 440 extra innings played under traditional rules and 288 extra innings played using modified rules. It is possible that this number is lower than expected because teams make late inning substitutions for defensive purposes, which might make run scoring decrease from the average. Under the modified extra innings rules, we would predict that 53 games or 54% more would end in the 10th inning.

The final two columns of Table 6 list the number of extra innings predicted using our methodology and the actual number of extra inning games played in 2021. We used the 2021 run-scoring environment in our analysis. The average number of runs scored per team per game was 4.53 in 2021 versus 4.83 in 2019. These numbers are statistically significant. The average number of runs scored in the period 2016–19 was 4.60, which is not statistically different from the number of runs scored in 2021.7

The prediction for ending in 10 innings is only off by one game, while the number of games expected to end in 11 innings is lower than actual. The difference isn’t large. It will be interesting to observe if this difference persists going forward. Will teams employ different strategies under the modified extra inning rules (e.g., will teams attempt to advance the runner on second via the bunt?) and will these strategies be optimal? Also of interest was the one 16-inning game in 2021, which can be viewed as an outlier or possibly a limitation of the methodology. The possibility of the extreme outlier might make that game even more special for the lucky fans who were able to see it.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we show how to use conditional probability analysis to examine the effect of changing the rules for extra innings in Major League Baseball. We can use the probability analysis to determine how the modified rules will affect the length of the game without actually having to run the experiment. The modified extra innings rule is expected to reduce innings beyond the 10th by 53%. Additionally, 92% of the extra innings games are expected to end by the 11th inning, and there is almost no chance of going beyond 14 innings. Other potential rules, such as putting runners on first or third or first and second, can be analyzed with this methodology. The results from 2021 show that the methodological results are similar to what teams actually experience with the continuation of extra innings. Our methodology predicts that in the full season of 2021, 61 games would go beyond the 10th inning based on the 2021 run-scoring environment with a runner on second. In actuality 62 games lasted beyond the 10th inning.

Sources

Retrosheet MLB Play by Play Data: https://www.retrosheet.org/

Tango, Tom, Michael Lichtman, and Andrew Dolphin. 2006. The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball. Lexington, KY: TMA Press.

Notes

1. Liz Roscher, “Commissioner Rob Manfred Really Wants to Shorten Baseball Games,” January 20, 2017, Yahoo! Sports. Accessed September 6, 2022. http://sports.yahoo.com/news/commissioner-robmanfred-really-wants-to-shorten-baseball-games-170119673.html.

2. Associated Press, “MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred Wants to Keep Expanded Playoffs, Extra Innings Rule beyond 2020.” USA TODAY, October 20, 2020, Accessed August 26, 2022. https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2020/10/20/ap-interview-manfred-likes-larger-playoff-runner-inextras/114452370.

3. These types of extra innings rules are used in youth baseball and have been tested in other professional baseball leagues, such as the Korean Baseball Organization (KBO), as well as independent and affiliated minor leagues.

4. In 2021 there were 9 more extra innings games than 2019.

5. The Tampa Bay Rays played 19 extra innings games for the highest number of games but did not play as many extra innings as the Giants.

6. In 2021 the probabilities are very similar. For example, the probability of scoring 1 or more runners with a runner on second base and no outs is also 61%.

7. There is no statistical difference in the proportion of home team wins between 2021 and 2019 and no statistical difference between 2021 and the period 2016–2019.