tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post3668982999834692474..comments2024-01-24T05:19:09.805-06:00Comments on This Game Of Games: Bradley's No-HitterJeffrey Kittelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-14049209117978041672009-01-28T12:32:00.000-06:002009-01-28T12:32:00.000-06:00"People were conscious of the steady improvement i..."People were conscious of the steady improvement in fielding, and they recognized a cleanly fielded game as evidence of greater skill on the players' part and as more enjoyable to watch than a raggedly played one."<BR/><BR/>Well, reporters did. I don't know if spectators in general agreed. There certainly is evidence that spectators back then, like today, enjoyed watching the long ball. At least some reporters disagreed: Chadwick's low-scoring "model games" are the obvious example, and I have seen them mocked. So I don't assume that the popular consensus of what made a game enjoyable matched journalistic ideology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-36836435759953831922009-01-27T07:13:00.000-06:002009-01-27T07:13:00.000-06:00The home team had its choice of what ball to use, ...The home team had its choice of what ball to use, and the Browns are said to have favored a very dead ball. At any rate, for one reason or another conditions in St. Louis favored pitchers considerably, and it's not clear to me that Bradley's outstanding 1876 season wasn't just a byproduct of that fact.<BR/><BR/>I think the general discussion of the concept of a no hitter is marred by presentism, the tendency to see history through our own eyes. <BR/><BR/>A game in which the pitcher allows no hits is obviously notable to a degree, but the fact that in relatively recent times we have chosen to fetishize the no-hitter is no reason to think we need to explain why people in other eras didn't do so. The article actually makes a little more of Bradley's accomplishment than I have seen in other contemporary accounts -- Frank Mountain and Ed Morris of Columbus pitched no hitters within about a week of each other in 1884 and the Columbus papers are even more unemphatic in mentioning it. <BR/>In 1876 only a few years had passed since the best teams regularly played games with scores like 20-18, and fielding errors played a large part in the scoring. People were conscious of the steady improvement in fielding, and they recognized a cleanly fielded game as evidence of greater skill on the players' part and as more enjoyable to watch than a raggedly played one. Well fielded games fit in a recognized category; precisely because no one had thrown a no hitter, there was no category to put them in. <BR/><BR/>That is reason enough why no hitters didn't immediately start being mentioned in headlines, and there doesn't seem any reason to strain for further explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-62212380336455473262009-01-26T22:56:00.000-06:002009-01-26T22:56:00.000-06:00Yeah-1876 not 1875. First no-hitter in NL history...Yeah-1876 not 1875. First no-hitter in NL history. Thanks for pointing that out. <BR/><BR/>Browsing A Game of Inches, I saw the story of how Bradley wanted someone (I forget who) to teach him the curve but the player refused to do so. I guess they wanted to keep the competitive advantage. <BR/><BR/>I'm going through the Globe for 1875 again-focusing on the Brown Stockings this time rather than the Reds. So you'll probably hear a bit more about Bradley over the next few weeks or so.Jeffrey Kittelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-47759431846019480722009-01-26T22:00:00.000-06:002009-01-26T22:00:00.000-06:00You seem to have transcribed the date of the artic...You seem to have transcribed the date of the article incorrectly.<BR/><BR/>I have a fondness for Bradley. He was a big part of why my beloved 1874 Eastons (the best team no one has ever heard of) were so good. <BR/><BR/>This is the era when curve balls are really coming into their own. Curves obviously weren't a complete novelty to the Hartfords, but as I interpret this era the technique was still developing, and the batters hadn't yet completely figured out how to respond (inasmuch as they ever have). So a pitcher with a good curve could make a team.<BR/><BR/>They also hadn't figured out how to avoid ruining the pitcher's arm (inasmuch as they yet have). 1876 was Bradley's peak. He played professionally for many more years, but was never again a dominant force.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com