tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post5682890224435536005..comments2024-01-24T05:19:09.805-06:00Comments on This Game Of Games: They Just Can't Let It GoJeffrey Kittelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-44044017866950998922010-05-06T15:45:25.732-05:002010-05-06T15:45:25.732-05:00I think I didn't read closely enough. I took ...I think I didn't read closely enough. I took this as an appeal against an unfavorable decision that hadn't been made, when on closer inspection it seems to be just a pro forma document that had to be filed to get credit for the unplayed games. It's only the Globe-Democrat that adds the comment about being "swindled," and that word is probably aimed at the Mutuals, not the League itself, as I thought.<br /><br />It does seem tough on Hartford, though, that they should be the ones effectively to suffer a penalty as punishment for the Mutuals' failure to play out their schedule.David Ballnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-61919312728268995422010-05-06T12:59:54.554-05:002010-05-06T12:59:54.554-05:00Of course, in the end, it's not all that impor...Of course, in the end, it's not all that important. StL has and had a serious inferiority complex, especially when it comes to Chicago, and these kind of slights are not taken lightly. The Globe was trying all kind of rhetorical arguments to make up for the fact that the Browns finished six games back (although after all the forfeits were counted, it was only a five and a half game deficit). They won the series against Chicago, they won all the series against all their opponents, they should be awarded the forfeits, Chicago used a lively ball, etc. It's a loser's argument. Who gets this worked up over second place?Jeffrey Kittelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-76162615770313966172010-05-06T12:53:34.931-05:002010-05-06T12:53:34.931-05:00I would have to believe that it's technically ...I would have to believe that it's technically directed at the League. The Browns, and the Globe, believed that they were being jobbed out of second place because, while they had a higher winning percentage than Hartford, they had fewer wins than the Blues. The Blues, with more wins, were second and StL was third. However, the problem is that Hartford played more games than StL because of the Phil/NY situation. The Browns beleived, and they were proved right in the long run, that they should be awarded their unplayed Phil/NY games as a forfeit and therefore would have more wins and a higher winning percentage than Hartford. They were arguing that the League should award them the forfeits and second place.<br /><br />Even though this was done and the official League standings for 1876 have StL in second, go to B-Ref and check the 1876 standings. They have Hartford in second over StL and don't have the forfeits as part of the record. So I guess you can say that the argument was also unsuccessfully directed at history. The final standings, with the forfeits, that was published at the League meeting in December 1876 (which I'm posting sometime this week) is substantially different than the one at B-Ref.Jeffrey Kittelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-25114500516828532342010-05-06T06:50:13.568-05:002010-05-06T06:50:13.568-05:00I've lost track now, who is this directed agai...I've lost track now, who is this directed against? Who was saying St. Louis shouldn't have second place?David Ballnoreply@blogger.com