tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post5822425630300961388..comments2024-01-24T05:19:09.805-06:00Comments on This Game Of Games: The 1876 Brown Stockings: Dame RumorJeffrey Kittelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-68122945535792255612010-01-23T23:58:22.714-06:002010-01-23T23:58:22.714-06:00You didn't like the Hartford stuff, David? I ...You didn't like the Hartford stuff, David? I gave you the inning by inning account of the first no-hitter in NL history. And Bradley's in the process of setting a consecutive shutout innings record (probably; I'm still having trouble running that down). But all everybody wants is the salacious stuff. <br /><br />Of course, I blame myself. I've been trumpeting this for awhile and building it up to be something spectacular. I was telling somebody the other day that I felt a little pressure about it. I feel that after all the promotion I really had to come through with something. But it is what it is.<br /><br />There are some holes in my logic. Battin signing with the Athletics doesn't really fit the pattern of the "honest" players wanting to leave StL, considering his actions in 1877. The flirtation with Harry Wright is odd and doesn't necessarily fit. If we have an anti-corruption faction and a pro-McGeary group, which side would most want to bring in Wright? The pro-McGeary group would want to get rid of Graffen but the anti-corruption people probably believed that Wright would be a strong hand on the tiller. Maybe it was something that everybody could agree on. Even the Pike/Remsen situation doesn't perfectly fit my explanation.<br /><br />But, generally speaking, I think the evidence is there to say that the club is divided between an anti-corruption group and a status quo/pro-McGeary group (I hesitate to call it a pro-corruption group). It explains some of the things that we didn't have answer for, specifically the question of why the Brown Stockings didn't bring back Pike, Bradley and Cuthbert in 1877. And if you argue that the pro-McGeary group won a power struggle within the club, you can show how a culture of corruption enveloped the Brown Stockings.<br /><br />That's probably the most significant thing. Previously, when anybody wrote about the break up of the Brown Stockings, they pointed to the 1877 gambling scandal. But we can show that that wasn't an isolated incident and that kind of corruption was something that the club was dealing with for several years. It went so far as to break up the rather successful and popular 1875/76 Brown Stockings. And the triumph of the pro-McGeary camp may actually have left people like Blong and Battin and Burtis feeling rather brazen. The decisions made in 1876 may very well have facilitated the corruption that we see in 1877. <br /><br />It's not exactly earth-shattering but I think it does allow us to look at the Brown Stockings differently than we did before. The Pike quote tomorrow is fantastic and I almost posted it as soon as I found it. The post will probably be up a little late. It's not completely finished as I've had a rather busy week. But it will be up tomorrow afternoon.Jeffrey Kittelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02367989375750209078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-55421997362477076892010-01-23T22:37:56.615-06:002010-01-23T22:37:56.615-06:00Keep on posting such themes. I love to read storie...Keep on posting such themes. I love to read stories like that. BTW add more pics :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5985668569918053928.post-62276276248441153502010-01-23T09:55:48.274-06:002010-01-23T09:55:48.274-06:00At last the suspense ends and we get to the good s...At last the suspense ends and we get to the good stuff. Aside from the New Haven item about Nichols, do any of the other announcements, explicitly report official league notices? That would be about the best possible indicator of reliability, and would pretty well settle Battin's status.<br /><br />Lip Pike was an outstanding player but he was notoriously touchy and temperamental (rarely regarded as a good-natured, jolly, companionable fellow). It will be interesting to see what he has to say. Amid all the larger news, I'm struck by the quick signing of Dehlman. You would have thought that, even in 1876, they would have wanted their first baseman to hit a little, no matter how good he was in the field.David Ballnoreply@blogger.com