striven to aid the players in their efforts to gain the top rank in the
great national game. They have had a hard proposition in handling all of
the cases that have been brought to their attention, but their decisions
in all cases were absolutely fair and impartial. Then the matter of the
new agreement occasioned many hours of laborious work on the part of the
members of the Commission, and when the instrument was finally announced
it meant that all of the parties to such an agreement were satisfied and
that there could be no improvement. There was one detail that covered a
wide field, and that was in the matter of players; drafted by the two
big leagues and later sent back to the minors. Under the old National
Agreement it was possible to pick up a player by means of the annual
draft from one of the Class C leagues and just before the opening of the
season send him back to the club from whence he came without ever having
given him a chance to land with a club in some higher organization.
Realizing that such players were not given a chance to advance in the
Base Ball profession, this matter was thoroughly thrashed out and the
new ruling under which all of the National Agreement clubs operate was
adopted. Now it is possible for a player in any of the smaller leagues
to be drafted by a major league club, and when the latter party does not
care to retain possession of such a player he is first offered to the
Class AA clubs. All of these clubs must waive on him before he can be
dropped farther down in the list, and if such should be the case he
would then be offered to the Class A clubs. In that way the player,
although he is not fast enough to remain in the two major leagues, is
always given a chance to advance, for if any of the clubs in those
classes higher than that from which he came had grabbed him he was bound
to receive an increase in salary. That meant that he had his chance to
advance, and that was the sole purpose of the National Agreement in
drafting such a rule.
During the past drafting season there were sixty-nine players drafted by
the two major league clubs, and of that number twenty-seven have already
been sent back to the minor leagues. The Class AA and A clubs claimed
all of these twenty-seven, and it is more than likely that there will
also be many more who will be given trials by the big league clubs
during the spring training season and who may later be turned back to
the minors. Of the twenty-seven players thus far sent back seventeen of
them advanced in their profession, a tribute to the sagacity, wisdom and
impartiality of the members of the National Commission. The decision, as
announced by Chairman Herrmann of the National Commission pertaining to
this return of drafted players, is as follows:
------------|-----------------|----------|-----------|--------------
Clubs. | League. | Players. | Drafted | Drafted By
| | | From |
------------|-----------------|----------|-----------|--------------
Louisville |American Asso. |Stansbury |Louisville |St. Louis N.L.
Chattanooga |Southern Asso. |Balenti |Chattanooga|St. Louis A.L.
Sacramento |Pacific Coast |Berghammer|Lincoln |Chicago N.L.
Sacramento |Pacific Coast |Orr |Sacramento |Phila. A.L.
Sacramento |Pacific Coast |[1]Young |Harrisburg |New York A.L.
Sacramento |Pacific Coast |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
Indianapolis|American Asso. |Berghammer|Lincoln |Chicago N.L.
Indianapolis|American Asso. |Cathers |Scranton |St. Louis N.L.
Indianapolis|American Asso. |Metz |San Antonio|Boston N.L.
Indianapolis|American Asso. |Kernan |Oshkosh |Chicago A.L.
New Orleans |Southern Asso. |Bates |Newp't News|Cleveland.
New Orleans |Southern Asso. |Wilson |Knoxville |Cleveland.
New Orleans |Southern Asso. |Betts |San Antonio|Cleveland.
New Orleans |Southern Asso. |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
New Orleans |Southern Asso. |Williams |Newark, O |Washington.
Portland |Pacific Coast |Williams |Newark, O |Washington.
Portland |Pacific Coast |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
Portland |Pacific Coast |Bates. |Newp't News|Cleveland.
Portland |Pacific Coast |Grubb |Morristown |Cleveland.
Portland |Pacific Coast |Wilson |Knoxville |Cleveland.
Portland |Pacific Coast |Betts |San Antonio|Cleveland.
Milwaukee |American Asso. |Beall |Denver |Cleveland.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Berghammer|Lincoln |Chicago N.L.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Miller |Harrisburg |Pittsburgh.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Booe |Ft. Wayne |Pittsburgh.
St. Paul |American Asso. |House |Kewanee |Detroit.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Beall |Denver |Cleveland.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Balenti |Chattanooga|St. Louis A.L.
St. Paul |American Asso. |Agnew |Vernon |St. Louis A.L.
Omaha |Western League |Wilson |Knoxville |Cleveland.
Omaha |Western League |Williams |Newark, O |Washington.
Omaha |Western League |Betts |San Antonio|Cleveland.
Omaha |Western League |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
Buffalo |Internat'l League|Schang |Buffalo |Phila. A.L.
Buffalo |Internat'l League|Dolan |Rochester |Phila. A.L.
Buffalo |Internat'l League|Cottrell |Scranton |Chicago N.L.
Buffalo |Internat'l League|Clymer |Minneapolis|Chicago N.L.
Columbus |American Asso. |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
Rochester |Internat'l League|Dolan |Rochester |Phila. A.L.
Montreal |Internat'l League|Connelly |Montreal |Washington.
Toledo |American Asso. |Hernden |[2] |St. Louis.
Toledo |American Asso. |Stevenson |Oshkosh |St. Louis N.L.
Toledo |American Asso. |Bates |Newp't News|Cleveland.
Toledo |American Asso. |Wilson |Knoxville |Cleveland.
Denver |Western League |Heckinger |Racine |Chicago N.L.
Denver |Western League |Drohan |Kewanee |Washington.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1: Subject to investigation as to whether New York American League Club
has title.
2: Subject to investigation as to whether St. Louis American or National
League Club has title to this player and how secured.
* * * * *
A WORLD'S SERIES PROBLEM
Much discussion arose after the finish of the last world's series as to
whether the adjustment of dates had worked satisfactorily. The
contention was that playing off a tie game on the ground where the game
had been scheduled might work some inconvenience to "fans" and result in
an inequitable allotment of dates, simply to conform to custom.
It was asserted that the importance of the series demanded that it be a
home-and-home affair, dates to alternate regularly, regardless of all
ties or drawn games. To obtain opinion that is sound and practical the
Editor of the GUIDE sent forth the following letter:
NEW YORK, January 31, 1913.
During the recent world's series it so happened that a tie was played in
one of the cities, which compelled both teams to remain in that city for
another date. Before the series was over this arrangement resulted in
one club having five games on its home grounds and the other club having
but three games on its home grounds.
It has seemed to some that it is unjust. It is also contended that it is
unfair to the patrons of the game to schedule a contest and then not
play in the city specified after some had traveled many miles to see it.
Will you please give the GUIDE your opinion as to whether a change would
be advisable?
Very truly yours,
JOHN B. FOSTER,
_Editor Spalding's Official Base Ball Guide._
Answers were received to the request for a "symposium of opinion" as
follows:
"So far as having any effect on the chances of the two teams is
concerned, I don't think having to play more games on one ground than on
the other makes any material difference. Where cities are sufficiently
near each other for games to be alternated daily, it would perhaps be
fairer to spectators to do so, irrespective of ties; yet it seems to me
that a tie on one grounds should be played off the next day in the same
city."
W.B. HANNA,
_New York Sun._
* * * * *
"In my opinion the arrangement on tie games in the post-season contests
is a poor one. I saw the result of it in the series between the Cubs and
White Sox last fall. Two tie games were played and the confusion and
inconvenience it caused the fans was deplorable. It is unjust to the
followers who support Base Ball. It is also unjust, in a small way, to
the club which has to play two or more games on its opponent's field.
Players when away from their home grounds, in a fall series, are more or
less under a nervous strain. If there was confusion, inconvenience and
difficulty in a local series as a result of a tie game, the folly of the
arrangement must appear more absurd when towns like New York and Boston
are involved. Dates should alternate, tie or not tie."
OSCAR C. REICHOW,
_Chicago Daily News._
* * * * *
"We are in receipt of your favor of the 31st nlt., and wish to thank you
for the opportunity presented.
"It is our opinion that a tie game was played and it should be
considered as a game. Either side had an opportunity to win and any
advantage that the home club might have had was lost when it failed to
break the tie.
"It is, therefore, our belief that this game should have been played in
the other city.
"As to it being unfair to the patrons who had traveled so far to see the
scheduled contest, there is no doubt that they were afforded a
sufficient amount of amusement and excitement for their trouble, in
witnessing a closely played contest."
J. G. T. SPINK,
_St. Louis Sporting News._
* * * * *
"It seems to me that the game should be alternated between the
contending cities regardless of ties. The tie game gave Boston five
games on the home grounds, while the Giants had only three. Besides,
many persons, who traveled to see the games in New York, were
inconvenienced."
JOHN E. WHEELER,
_New York Herald._
* * * * *
"I think that the scheduled programme should be played through
irrespective of the results of the respective games, and any extra
playing or playing-off should be done after the originally set schedule
is completed."
H. P. BORCHELL,
_Sports Editor New York Times._
* * * * *
"I believe it would be inadvisable to change the method that now
prevails. While the situation which arose last season did seem unjust to
the New York club, I think the very fact that Boston had five games on
its home grounds, and the Giants but three on their own diamond, was an
answer to those ill-advised skeptics who are always ready to raise the
cry of hippodroming.
"That same situation is not likely to again arise for a long time, and I
believe the rule as it stands is a guarantee to the public of the strict
honesty of the world's championship contests."
DAMON RUNYON,
_The New York American._
* * * * *
"A change in the rules regarding world series games would he fairer to
the patrons of the sport. Here in Chicago this past fall two ties were
played and, as a result, there was considerable confusion over the
ticket arrangements. How much more is the case when two cities are
involved? A condition which allows five games to be played in one city
and only three in another is scarcely fair to the two teams. By making a
schedule calling for alternate games in each city, irrespective of ties,
everybody--fans and players--would get an even break."
MALCOLM MACLEAN,
_Base Ball Editor Chicago Evening Post._
* * * * *
"I think it might be fairer to both world's series contenders to play a
regular schedule, regardless of the fact that any tie games may arise in
the series. Under the old system of playing the tie off in the city
where the tie game is played, it brings about a great deal of confusion.
Many fans make arrangements to see a game on a certain day and are
greatly disappointed when the game is played in a different city. Of
course, the old rule of playing the play-off game on the same grounds as
the tie game, is fair to both contesting clubs, as it is merely a matter
of chance where a tie game is played."
FRED. G. LIEB,
_New York Press._
* * * * *
"The rules regarding the manner of scheduling games for the world's
series should not be changed. There are times when they apparently work
a hardship to one team or the followers of one club, but, after all,
they help to throw the necessary safeguards around the contests. As for
the argument for not playing off a tie game on the same grounds, thus
disarranging the dates and inconveniencing the fans, patrons of the
world's series games are accustomed to this, since bad weather
frequently cuts into the event and causes postponements.
"In a way it does not appear fair that one club should have the
privilege of playing five games at home to three games at home for its
opponents. The rule of playing off a tie game on the same grounds is a
fixture in Base Ball. As to the other game, this was a question of the
luck of the toss of the coin.
"The fans have to trust to luck as to the number of games they will see
in a world's series, this depending upon the number of games played and
possibly upon the toss for a seventh battle. In 1905 the fans of
Philadelphia saw only two games in a world's series with New York. In
1910 only two games were played here in the series with Chicago.
"Any time a club has three games on its own grounds in a series where
four victories decide the issue either it or its followers have not much
chance to raise an objection."
WILLIAM G. WEART,
_The Evening Telegraph._
* * * * *
"It was, of course, to the disadvantage of the Giants to be obliged to
play five of the eight games in the post-season series last fall on the
grounds of their opponents, but this came as a result of one tie game on
the Boston grounds and being outlucked on the toss to determine where
the deciding game should be played. This tie game unquestionably caused
much inconvenience to patrons because of the change in the schedule made
necessary because of it.
"It is not clear to me, however, just now these things can be remedied
without disturbing the balance of an even break for both teams more
violently than was the case last fall.
"I do not believe there will be another series just like the one of
1912, and so, in my opinion, an immediate change in the conditions
governing these series would not be advisable. It is not clear to me
just what changes could be made. One club or the other is bound to have
the advantage of an extra game on its own grounds, providing seven games
are necessary. The championship in nine out of ten contests will be
decided in seven games or less.
"Then, as to having the games played according to an arbitrarily fixed
schedule, so as not to inconvenience patrons--that would be out of the
question, being open to the objection that it would then be possible to
have every game that figures in the result of the series played on the
home grounds of one of the contestants. For instance, tie games or
unfavorable weather which would prevent a game being played in one city,
would throw all the games to the other city where there might be no tie
games nor unfavorable weather. That would mean four straight, if it so
happened that the home team won the games, and the loser would never
have gotten action on its own grounds. That would be considerably worse
than five to three.
"So it looks to me as if the patrons would have to take their chances in
the future as they have in the past."
JAMES C. O'LEABT,
_Boston Globe._
* * * * *
"It seems to me that it would be better to alternate (in case of a tie),
as a team able to tie its opponent on a hostile field would be entitled
to consideration for this performance. I am very certain, however, that
the players of both clubs in the recent world's series were satisfied
with an arrangement which minimized the amount of traveling they were
called upon to do.
"Persons who had seen a five-inning tie game terminated by rain would
hardly be satisfied. It seems to me that the rule as to alternating ball
parks should be applied strictly, but only in case the tie game involved
went nine innings or more."
FRANCIS EATON,
_Sports Editor Boston Journal._
* * * * *
"To me the feasible thing to do appears to be to insert a clause in
stipulations covering all short series of a special character, such as
intercity, inter-league and world's series, making it compulsory for the
teams to alternate between the cities or grounds of the competing
clubs."
PURVES T. KNOX,
_New York Evening Telegram._
* * * * *
"Why wouldn't it be a good scheme to toss up for the deciding game only
in cases where an equal number of games had been played in each city,
and, in cases where one city had seen more games than the other, to play
the deciding game in the city which had seen the fewer games?
"I do not believe it advisable to change the commission's rule regarding
postponed games. The rule now provides that, in case of a postponement,
the clubs shall remain in the city in which the game was scheduled until
it is possible to play. If this rule were changed and there happened to
be a week of bad weather, as in 1911, the teams and many fans might be
forced to travel back and forth from one town to another for a week
without participating in or seeing a single game; and it might happen
some time that the jump would be between St. Louis and Boston."
R. W. LARDNER,
_Chicago Examiner._
* * * * *
"A change in the rule governing the playing-off of tie games in the
world's series should be made. The teams ought to appear in each city on
the dates named in the schedule drawn up before the series starts,
unless the weather interferes."
WILLIAM H. WRIGHT,
_New York Tribune._
* * * * *
"Drawn games are as unavoidable as rainy days in world's series, but not
as frequent. They operate the same in their effect on the contest for
the world's pennant and in causing confusion among the patrons by
disarranging the schedule. It would be manifestly unjust if, after a
rain postponement, the competing teams did not remain and play the game
off before playing elsewhere. That might result in playing all of the
games in one city. Since drawn games are treated like postponed games in
the regular season, and are of infrequent occurrence in world's series,
any other arrangement than the present does not seem advisable. The
patrons, who should be considered always, would be among the first to
object if each team did not have an equal show to win. In the last
series only four games that counted were played in Boston and three in
New York and if New York had won the toss for the deciding game the
situation would have been reversed. It would be manifestly fairer to
play the seventh game if necessary in some neutral city."
L. E. SANBORN,
_Chicago Tribune._
NEW FACES IN THE OLD LEAGUE
BY JOHN B. FOSTER.
Not for some time has there been such a turning over of the leaves of
history in the National League as during 1912-13, and because of this
there are many new faces peering out of the album. There have also been
changes in the minor circuits and one prominent change in the American
League.
The death of John T. Brush removed from Base Ball a dean of the National
League. Wise in the lore of the game, a man more of the future than of
the present, as he always foresaw that which some of his contemporaries
were less alert in perceiving, it meant no easy task to be his
successor.
Prior to the death of Mr. Brush there was a great deal of curious and
some idle speculation as to his ultimate successor in case of decease,
or, in the event of his retirement because of bodily weariness. One or
two went so far as to say that upon his death Andrew Freedman would
return to prominence in Base Ball, because he was the real owner of the
New York club. Once and for all the writer would like to put the
personal stamp of absolute denial on the repeated statements made by
certain individuals in New York and Chicago that Andrew Freedman
retained the control of the New York club after John T. Brush was
reported to have purchased it.
Mr. Freedman retained nothing of the kind. Not that Mr. Brush objected
to him as a partner, but when Mr. Brush purchased the stock he purchased
the control outright, although he did request Mr. Freedman to hold a few
shares and not give up his personal interest in Base Ball, for Mr.
Freedman had a great liking for the game in spite of his stormy career.
The assertions that Mr. Freedman was the real owner and Mr. Brush the
nominal owner were made with malicious intent, of which the writer has
proof, and through a desire, if possible, to combat the popularity and
the success of the Giants.
This digression has been made to call attention to the fact that while
rumor was plentiful as to the future control of the Giants Mr. Brush was
carefully "grooming" a young man--his son-in-law, Mr. H. Hempstead--to
take his place.
To a few it was known that Mr. Hempstead was acquiring such experience
and information as would be necessary to assume the control of an
undertaking which has grown so big as the organization of the Giants in
New York. The business details of the club have quadrupled and the cares
and anxieties of the man at the head have increased in proportion.
The Giants, as successful as they have been under the control of John T.
Brush and John J. McGraw, the men who have been the executive heads in
both the business and the playing departments of the game, are as
susceptible to reverses as if they were the lowliest club in the
organization. It is only by constant and severe application that the
club's affairs may be kept at the best pitch.
Mr. Hempstead brings to Base Ball the advantage of youth, a keen
business sagacity developed beyond his years, coolness, a disposition
that is sunny and not easily ruffled, and a reputation for unvarying
fairness and the highest type of business and sport ideals. Quite a list
of qualities, but they are there.
If characteristics of that description fail to maintain the high
standard of the New York club, then it will be due to the fact that our
standards of business deportment have turned topsy-turvy.
William H. Locke is the new president and part owner of the Philadelphia
club. He and Mr. Hempstead are the "junior" presidents of the league.
There is no necessity for the Editor of the GUIDE to enter into any long
and fulsome praise as to William H. Locke.
His career speaks for itself and he speaks for himself. A young man of
the finest attributes, he has brought nothing to the mill of Base Ball
to grind except that which was the finest and the cleanest grain.
The writer has known Mr. Locke almost, it seems, from boyhood and
esteems him for his worth, not only as one who has administered the
affairs of Base Ball with skill and intelligence, but as one who wrote
of Base Ball with understanding and excellent taste, for it must not be
forgotten that Mr. Locke is a newspaper graduate into the ranks of the
great sport the affairs of which fill a little corner of the hearts of
so many of America's citizens.
Perhaps no young man ever left a newspaper office to become a Base Ball
president with more good wishes behind him than William H. Locke. He
served his apprenticeship as secretary of the Pittsburgh club and he
served it well. He is a high class, delightful young man, every inch of
him, and Philadelphia will soon become as proud of him as Pittsburgh is
now.
Still another newspaper writer has been claimed from the desk by the
National League. He is Herman Nickerson, formerly sporting editor of the
Boston Journal, who is now the secretary of the Boston National League
club.
"Nick" is known from one end of the National League circuit to the other
as one of the most solid and substantial of the writing force, and also
as one of the most demure and modest. In addition to his great fund of
information on Base Ball topics he is an author, and "The Sword of
Bussy," a book which was published during the winter, is even more
clever than some of the author's best Base Ball yarns, and that is
saying a great deal in behalf of a man wedded to Base Ball.
Another change in the National League was the selection of Frank M.
Stevens of New York, as one of the Board of Directors of the New York
National League club.
This brings into Base Ball one of New York's cleverest and brightest
young business men, one who is forging so rapidly to the front in
business circles in the big metropolis that many an older head goes to
him for advice. Mr. Stevens knows a lot about Base Ball, which is of
even greater importance in the game, and is not afraid to swing any
venture that will put with fairness a championship team into the big
city. He is a son of Harry M. Stevens, whom everybody knows, rich and
poor alike.