Blong has left the city. So far as we have heard any opinion expressed as to the action of the Directors of the Star club in his case, it is favorable to such action. It was simply a question as to whether a drunken, dishonest player should rule the club, or the Directors. Blong was impudent and reckless in his manner, when brought before the Directors. We believe he was advised to this course by those who were concerned in buying the Ludlow game. For our part we are fully convinced that the game was bought, sold and paid for; and this is the general opinion of those well informed.Among the ten members of the Board of Trustees who were present when Blong was expelled, there was not one to speak in his favor. The pretence that the Directors had nothing to do with an "exhibition game" is utterly preposterous. Does any one think it the duty of the Star Directors to allow a player to come on the grounds drunk at an exhibition game, or to sell such a game? Certainly not...The Philadelphias and St. Louis Browns played a fine game for the championship on the Ludlow grounds, Wednesday. Only six errors wee made on each side, but the Browns batted Zettlein freely, and made 5 runs to 2, by the Philadelphias...It seems the Enquirer reporter has entered into a kind of literary partnership with Blong. We believe one of them would sell out just about as quick as the other.
-The Ticket, September 23, 1875
4 comments:
As a side note, the game mentioned between the Philadelphias and the Browns is one of the few actual examples from this era of championship games being played in neutral territory. One occasionally sees such games cited as an example of major leagues oppressing the little dogs, but such things are actually very rare. (Later on you get Sunday games played in odd locations to avoid blue laws, but that is a somewhat different phenomenon.)
I am also impressed to see that retrosheet has this game noted correctly. There is some very good work put into that project.
I was wondering what that was all about and posted it to remind myself to look into it. It would be interesting to know what prompted the game to be played in the Cincinnati area.
As to retrosheet, they do seem to be diligent in their work. It's frustrating that they don't have all the information that we would like but from everything I understand the delays in putting up information come from them double and triple checking everything. It's admirable work.
I have no specific information as to why the game was played in Kentucky, but a reasonable guess is that one of the clubs (probably the Philadelphias) had marginal attendance, and thought that they might get a better crowd elsewhere.
I was thinking that since Cincinnati is just about equidistant from Philly and StL that they just decided to meet each other half way.
Looking at the Brown Stocking's schedule, it's kind of odd. They had a long homestand, went to Covington to play Philly and then had Philly at home for three more games before going to Chicago for two games. The neutral site game, which looks like it should have been a StL home game, doesn't really make much sense. The Brown Stockings interupted what would have been a fourteen game homestand to play Philadelphia in Covington.
It would have made more sense if both teams were travelling and decided to play a game in the Cincinnati market (show the flag, maybe scout some players, get a good crowd, make some money). But the Brown Stockings actually went out of their way to play this game. There must have been a specific reason for it.
Post a Comment