Here is a list of the rules governing the movements of the pitcher, in delivering the ball to the bat, which we saw violated repeatedly during 1894, without any protests from any of the umpires who acted in the games we reported. First—
Not a pitcher had his foot in contact with the rubber plate last season, all of them invariably placing their back foot a few inches in front of the plate. Not one pitcher in ten, after feigning to throw to a base, resumed his position, as required by the rule, after making the feint. Not one in ten held the ball "firmly in front of his body," as the rule requires. Not one in ten faced the batsman, as required by Rule 30. As for the balk rule it was as openly violated last season almost as it was in 1893. Time and again was Section 29, Rule 32, violated as was Section 3 all the time, as not one had his foot in position as the rule requires, and yet not an umpire fined a single pitcher for the violation of the rules in question, that we saw.
What the pitching rules should be made to foster is, first—thorough command of the ball, with the consequent accuracy of aim in delivery; secondly—the substitution of skilful strategy in delivery in the place of mere intimidating speed; thirdly—the avoidance of the wear and tear of an extremely swift delivery of the ball; fourthly—the prevention of obstacles to successful base running, in the way of allowing too many balk movements in preventing stolen bases. These desirable objects were almost impossible of attainment under the badly-worded rules in existence in 1894.
In regard to the wearing of the catcher's "big mitt" by infielders in 1894, it is worthy of note that that first-class utility man of the Philadelphia team, "Lave" Cross, while wearing a catcher's mitt as third baseman—a large one at that, too—used it to such advantage that it was next to impossible for a ball hit to his position to get by him. At times it was simply laughable to see him stop ground hits. To wear such gloves is making a travesty of skilful infield work in stopping hard hit, bounding or ground balls. But with the speedy batting of the hard ball now in use, the stopping of hard hit balls in the infield becomes dangerous to the fingers without the aid of small gloves. But no such glove as the catcher's mitt should be allowed to be used save by the catchers or first basemen. In this position the "mitt" in question is a necessity in view of the great speed of the pitcher's delivery and the extremely wild, swift throwing from the field positions to first base. It should be borne in mind that in the days when gloves were not worn, when the pitching was far less swift than now, even then broken and split fingers marked nearly every contest, and behind the bat four catchers were needed where one or two will now suffice.
A Washington scribe, in commenting on Manager Schmelz's work in 1894, said: "Schmelz is a base ball man from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, and we have been taught to believe here that when he says he will do a thing he comes pretty near fulfilling his prediction. If the team gets a fairly good start at the beginning of this season he is just as like as not to let several teams chase him under the wire in September next. A lack of team-work and a most deplorable weakness at short, second and third throughout the past season lost the team many a game."
To this latter list may be added, incompetent captaining of the team by the noted kicker, Joyce.
The Boston correspondent of the St. Louis Sporting News, in one of his letters of last winter, sent the following interesting account of an interview had between Manager Selee, of the Bostons, and a business man he met on a train last October. The B.M. asked the manager "whether ball-players, as a class, were a disreputable set of men, who made a practice of spending their money foolishly, and of saying and doing things on the ball field that were decidedly objectionable; also if, in consequence, the interest in the game had not to a very large degree been on the wane for a number of years past? He said he had read in the papers of a number of acts that had led him to believe that such was the case, and that, while formerly he had been an attendant at the games, that latterly he had lost his desire in that respect, though he still had an interest in all that is published about the game and the ball-players." Mr. Selee at once attempted to show the gentleman where his opinion was at fault, and an interesting conversation was carried on until the train reached Boston, the gentleman severely criticising the players and the Boston manager defending them.
The correspondent, in commenting on this, wrote as follows: "This incident opens anew a topic that has created considerable discussion for several years, and which was brought most forcibly to the public eye by a number of cases that occurred during the season of 1894, namely: Has the rough, rowdy, disreputable, hoodlum element increased or decreased in the professional arena in the past five or ten years?" Further on he adds: "Any intelligent, unprejudiced student of the game cannot but reach the conclusion that in recent years the excessive drinkers, the foul-mouthed talkers, in short, the worst element in the professional ranks, has been gradually weeded out, until the evil has been reduced to almost a minimum, while the intelligence, manliness and exemplary habits of the players have increased correspondingly; where, even five years ago, a ball team could be found where a majority of its players were of the drinking, gambling, disreputable class, to-day can be seen the results of a great and gratifying reform in the personnel of the teams, brought about largely by the efforts of the management, who have had their eyes opened to the trend of public opinion, and have gradually gotten rid of this unpopular element, and secured in their places players of a far different plane of morals." Judging from reports of contests in the League arena in 1894, the reformation above referred to has been far too slow in its progress for the good of the game. Witness the novelty in League annals of men fighting each other or striking umpires on the field, the use of vile language in abuse of umpires, and the many instances of "dirty" ball playing recorded against the majority of the League club teams of the past season. "The time was," says the same writer, "when a ball player's skill was the primary recommendation for an engagement, his moral qualifications being of a secondary consideration. To-day, however, while playing skill is, of course, one of the leading qualities that an applicant for honors on the diamond field must possess, it does not fill the whole bill by any means. His habits, his influence among his fellow players, his general reputation with the public, are also taken into consideration more than before, and if he can pass muster in all these respects he is eligible for engagement in all well managed teams."
In commenting on the existing situation of the professional branch of our grand national game, Mr. Wm. H. Bell, the Kansas correspondent of the St. Louis Sporting News, says: "The growth and development of our national game as been wonderful. Its success has been unparalleled in the world's history of athletic sports, and stands to-day a living monument to the courage, energy and perseverance of the American people. When we pause a moment in our contemplation of the brilliant future of our game and turn a glance back over the past, and try to realize that less than one generation has lived since the birth of base ball, and our fathers guided its first feeble steps, even we Americans, familiar with progress unequaled in the history of the world, are forced to marvel at the rapid growth of this athletic sport." Further on, on the same topic, Mr. Bell says very truly: "While base ball has advanced with great strides, its growth has been normal and healthy. Its success is not the result of a boom, giving it a fictitious value, its prosperity is not as an inflated balloon that will collapse when torn by the knife of adversity. It is but a creation of man, and while its life has been one of unequaled prosperity it has suffered, as do all things of this earth. One factor has ever been potent in its success and that is honesty. The honesty of the game has always been its motto, and though often assailed has still remained intact. This, alone, has gained for baseball a foothold in the hearts of the American people that nothing can dislodge. Americans are known the world over as lovers of fair and honest sport, and to base ball they have given their unswerving allegiance." Here is a merited compliment to the National League from the same able pen: "Our national game was never so firmly established in the hearts of the people as at the present time. It is safe in the hands of true and tried men, who are devoting their lives to its success. It is dominated and controlled by that grand old organization, the National League, which for twenty years has been the great exponent of the game, and has done more to advance the game than any other factor. The League has, during its life, stood on one platform, "honesty and purity in base ball," and has always retained the confidence and respect of the people. It has elevated the game until to-day base ball stands on a firm foundation of popular approval unequaled by any other athletic sport. While the game has advanced with marvelous rapidity it has experienced short periods of depression and stagnation during its career of thirty years. It has had enemies who have sought to pervert it for their own uses. It has been all but torn asunder by civil war. But each time it has bravely met the issue and in the end triumphed. It is just now recovering from the effects of a civil war which all but destroyed it. The rapidity with which it has recovered has been wonderful and is to me a greater proof of prosperity and success than any success that could come to it while enjoying a long period of peace." We regret not having space to quote more at length from Mr. Bell's very able article published in the Sporting News of January 12th last.
* * * * *