The 1884 Maroons: That's Just Dunlap Being Dunlap

The St. Louis Unions and Chicago Unions played the first game of the second home series yesterday afternoon at Union Park.  The attendance was about 2,000.  Daly and Gross were the visitors' battery and Taylor and Baker were in the points for the home team.  Daly struck out thirteen men and Taylor six.  Dunlap led off with home run, sending the ball over the fence at left center, making the longest hit that has been made on the grounds.  The home nine played an errorless game, and the visitors, who made but seven scattering hits, were blanked.  It was a quick game.  On one occasion, when Umpire Sullivan called a strike on Dunlap, the latter turned and scowled at him.  Sullivan very quickly ordered him to look the other way or he would fine him $25. A few more such umpires as Sullivan would be a benefit to the Union Association, and particularly to the home club.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 21, 1884


That's an eventful game for Dunlap.  Essentially wins the game with a monster, lead-off home run and then later gets into a bit of a row with the umpire.  That's Dunlap in a nutshell.  If he had refused to play the game unless he got a raise and then did all that, it would have been the perfect summation of Dunlap's baseball life.

Tom Oran During The Civil War

A match game of Base Ball was played yesterday afternoon, on Gamble's Lawn, between the Commercial, Jr., and Cyclone clubs...

-Missouri Republican, June 2, 1863


This is pretty neat.  I think that the earliest we had traced Oran's baseball career was to 1867, when he was playing with the Olympics.  But now we know that Oran, who around 16 years old in 1863, was not only in St. Louis during the Civil War but he was also playing baseball.

Oran, of course, was the first Native American to play in the major leagues.

Also, it should be noted that this Cyclone Club was not the same club that was founded by Merritt Griswold in 1859.  That club broke up sometime in 1861.  

Speaking Of Match Games During The Civil War...

A match game of base ball came off yesterday on the old Commercial grounds, between the Baltic (second nine) and the Independent Base Ball Clubs, which resulted in the defeat of the latter.

-Missouri Democrat, June 5, 1863


Two days before this game was played, Robert E. Lee launched his second invasion of the North and was heading for Pennsylvania.

Of note here, besides the fact that this was a rare match game played in St. Louis during the Civil War between two senior clubs, is that Shepard Barclay was pitching and captaining the Baltic Club.

For The Championship

The game of Base Ball played at Gamble Lawn yesterday, between the Union and Empire Base Ball Clubs, resulted in the complete victory of the former.  The score was as follows: [Union 53, Empire 15.]
The game was played for the Championship.

-Missouri Republican, May 15, 1862


Just for a bit of context, while this game was being played Stonewall Jackson was routing Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley and McClellan had already landed his forces in Virginia and was (slowly) marching on Richmond.  The Civil War was in full swing.

What interests me here is the reference that the game was "played for the Championship."  Most likely this was one of a series of games between the Empires and Unions for the championship rather than a winner-take-all championship game.  There appears to have been a championship series between the clubs in 1861 and I doubt that they would have changed the format so radically in 1862.

I should also mention that this is one of the few match games I'm aware of that was played between two senior clubs in St. Louis during 1862.  There was plenty of baseball going on during the war but match games between senior clubs still appears to have been a rare occurrence.

Griswold Resigns The Presidency Of The Cyclone Club

The game of base ball now so popular in this as in Eastern cities, was ushered in yesterday afternoon, by the Cyclone Base Ball Club, on their old grounds in Lafayette Park, on which occasion they had the pleasure of having united with them in the game, representatives of the Morning Star, Empire and Commercial Clubs.  As was the case last season, a jolly time was had, especially when a member in his eager endeavors to catch the ball would step into some sunken hole, (left to ornament the park,) thereby changing his movement into that of the Zouave drill, or more properly speaking, lofty tumbling of a gymnast.  But we are happy to say this is soon to be remedied, as the clubs have petitioned the Common Council for the privilege of leveling the same at their own expense, which petition has been referred to the Park commissioners, and only awaits their action, when the improvements will be immediately commenced, provided the Commissioners do not delay the matter until it is too late in the season for starting the grass on places that are to be filled.  We notice the Club is composed of the same members as last year, but a slight change has been made in the officers, caused by Mr. M.W. Griswold resigning the Presidency, which is now filled by the promotion of the Vice President, Mr. Leonard Matthews, and the election of Mr. Benteen as Vice President, Mr. M.W. Alexander, Secretary, Mr. F.L. Garesche, Treasurer, and Messrs. Wm. Matthews, J. Riggin, Jr. and E. Bredell, Jr., Trustees.  The Cyclones play every Wednesday and Saturday afternoon.

-Missouri Republican, March 7, 1861


There is some very important information in this brief article from the Republican.  The mention of Lafayette Park as the Cyclones' "old grounds" should lay to rest any debate about whether or not they were playing in the park prior to 1861.  Now that debate was mostly (or only) taking place in my own mind but I'm back to being comfortable in stating that the Cyclones played at Lafayette Park in 1859 and 1860.

More important is the reference to Griswold resigning the presidency of the club prior to March 1861.  There are a couple of secondary sources that state that Leonard Matthews was the club's first president and I always found that to be odd.  I always wondered why Griswold wouldn't have been elected president.  He basically formed the club and introduced the New York game to St. Louis.  Why wouldn't he have been president of the Cyclones?  Now, in any club and election, there is politics involved and I just figured Matthews was a more popular figure among the club members.  But this article implies that Griswold was president in 1860 and that leads me to question whether or not he was president in 1859.  That would make more sense than Matthews being president and Matthews election to the club presidency in 1861 would explain the references in the secondary sources, which date to the mid-1890s at the earliest.  Matthews was remembered as being the president because he was the last president.   

The 1884 Maroons: A Tough Loss

About 800 people were present at the game to-day, the last of the series of four played here between the Cincinnati Unions and the St. Louis Unions.  It was the hottest day of the season.  The sun blazing out of a clear sky with the mercury at [eighty-two degrees.]  The Cincinnatis had for their manager a new man, Sam Crane, and to this they are tonight ascribing success.  They were first at bat.  Harbidge went out on a fly.  Then Powell got a base on balls, and afterward reached second on a wild throw, made by Baker for the purpose of catching him napping.  Hawes then sent a single to left, giving Powell time to score.  Hawes made first on his own hit and right away got to second on Dunlap's muff of Dickerson's assist.  Then Sylvester flew out to Dickerson and Dunlap took in Jones' grounder and threw him out at first.  After that it was an even tug through five innings, during which each club had players on bases, but neither proved able to send a man around.  In the seventh inning Sylvester opened with a good three-baser to left, and got home on a failure by Brennan, after the ball had been fielded to him, to get it to the catcher.  Jones then got a base on balls.  Crane followed on his grounder to Dunlap, and got his first while Dunlap threw in to head off Sylvester.  Burns sent off a grounder, which, by Dunlap's assist, was fielded in and availed to capture Jones at the home plate.  Then Crane undertook to steal home, but got taken in.  Barber in the eighth started with a three-bagger and came in on Harbidge's out.  Powell made a base hit and was followed by Hawes with a two-baser, but Jones and Sylvester were unable to bring them home.  Whitehead sent a grounder to Jones who fumbled it, which with Schwartz's low ball, gave Whitehead second.  Dunlap, after Hodnett had struck out, sent a sky-scraper to center for a home run, making the only two runs for the visitors.  Dickerson then hit safely, after which Rowe forced him out at second on a grounder.  In the ninth inning two hits by the Cincinnatis and four errors by the visitors gave the home club three runs, while the visitors proved an easy prey in the last half of the inning.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 20, 1884

The 1884 Maroons: Most Unmercifully

To-day the St. Louis Union Club walked over the Cincinnati Unions most unmercifully, but so gracefully as to elicit admiration from the 750 spectators who witnessed the feat.  The home club batted hard, as is shown by Dickerson and Rowe, the left and middle fielders of the visitors, being credited with nine put-outs, of which all but two were difficult ones.  But it was by splendid playing at the bat and in the field that the visitors won their victory.  With such batting as that of to-day by the Cincinnatis at least a half score of their hits that counted for naught would have been safe hits against any other antagonists.  Dunlap took in seven hits, of which five appeared safe for one base, and Whitehead made a long running catch, which before accomplished the feat seemed impossible.  Both clubs had good catchers, but the visitors were the better equipped with their pitcher. At all events, they hit Bradley more easily than the Cincinnatis hit Hodnett.  Brennan showed brilliantly in throwing to bases.  Hawes, of the Cincinnati Club, won applause by a over-handed running catch.  

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 18, 1884

The 1884 Maroons: At Least The Game Was Short

The weather to-day was a little warmer than that of yesterday, but still was favorable for good playing.  As to the grounds, their condition was very greatly improved.  About 1,000 people turned out to see the sport.  The contest was close, but it lacked spirit, and was therefore devoid of brilliant features.  There were no earned runs, no two-base or three-base hits, and not a home run.  On the other hand, there were neither wild pitches nor passed balls.  After entering upon the play both sides were speedily retired through the first two innings.  It was in the third inning that the only run in the first seven innings was made.  Whitehead had been put out of the way and Hodnett was given his base on calls.  Then a hit by Dunlap gave him second, and after that he got home on Dickerson's single and Burnes' interference with an assist to him from Harbidge.  After the third the retirements on both sides were rapid until the eighth inning, when a base on calls, a fumble by Rowell, Dickersons out, Rowe's sacrifice and Taylor's single secured two more.  In the ninth inning the St. Louis Club brought up their score to four on a fumble by Jones, a single and Sylvester's juggle.  The home club made their solitary run in the ninth on Whitehead's wild throw, Burnes' out and Powell's single.  Both nines fielded rather loosely.  Quinn and Dunlap made the only double play of the game.  Four men were struck out by Taylor and five by Burnes.  The game was short, only one hour and forty minutes.  Holland's umpiring gave general satisfaction.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 17, 1884

The 1884 Maroons: Hotly Contested From Beginning To End

Four thousand people saw a most exciting game at the Union Park in [Cincinnati] to-day between the St. Louis and Cincinnati nines.  It was hotly contested from beginning to end, and not until the very last man was out was the result a settled thing.  Both nines fielded magnificently.  Several running catches were effected by both teams, one by Rowe saving at least three runs.  The local nine clearly outbatted their opponents, but lost a victory through very sluggish base running, they having twelve men left on bases.  Taylor was quite effective for four innings, but after that he was pretty badly thumped.  Bradley pitched wonderfully strong, and Taylor was the only Missourian who could gauge his delivery successfully, he securing two three-base hits.  Harbidge and Burns did the best batting for the local nine.  The visitors began the fun in the first inning.  After Dunlap had flied out, Jones allowed Shafer his first by a poor throw.  Dickerson then flew out, while Rowe and Taylor followed with three-baggers and Baker a single, all of which netted three runs.  Neither side did anything more until the sixth.  Then Crane reached third on a bad throw by Brennan, Dunlap juggled Bradley's grounder, and a three-baser by Harbidge sent them home.  The latter could have easily scored a home run, but he was foolishly held at third by Barber.  Each gained a run in the seventh.  The visitors made theirs on a muffed fly by Burns, a fumble by Jones and a poor throw by Kelly, which, although it caught a man, should have kept Quinn from crossing the plate.  Jones tallied for the home nine on his single, a wild pitch and Crane's baser.  Taylor's three-baser and a single earned the only run in the contest.  The Cincinnatis had two men on bases in the last inning, with nobody out, but could not get them home.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 16, 1884

Trick McSorley Released By The Browns

Trick McSorley, the substitute player of the Brown Stockings, was released yesterday [June 4] by President Von der Ahe to the Memphis Club, where he will play short or third, and will probably manage the team.

-Sporting Life, June 9, 1886


McSorley's last game in the big leagues was May 6, 1886, against Pittsburgh.  He went 0-3 in his final game in with the Browns.

But this post is really just an excuse to show off this picture that was given to me by Lynn McSorley, the granddaughter of Trick McSorley.  I got to meet Lynn this weekend at the Cardinals' Winter Warm-Up and she was kind enough to give me all the files she had on her grandfather.  I can't tell you how great it was to meet Lynn and talk to her about her grandfather, who is one of my favorite 19th century ballplayers, as well as her and her family's efforts in researching his baseball career.  I'm honestly humbled and honored that she entrusted me with all the information that they had put together over the years.  

Touch That Plug And I'll Break Your Heads

Henry Clay Sexton

On Sept. 14, 1857, Henry Clay Sexton became St. Louis' first fire chief (formally, "chief engineer") at an annual salary of $1,000.  He had 30 employees and three steam engines.  Sexton got the job after the Mound Volunteer Fire Company, where he was chief, sold its engine and house at North Broadway and Brooklyn Street to the city for $250. 

Some volunteer companies refused to quit.  In August 1858, Sexton personally defended a plug with a heavy wrench, telling his covetous competitors, "Touch that plug and I'll break your heads."

-St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 12, 2010


This is from a nice article about the beginnings of the St. Louis Fire Department that's online at the Post's website.

Sexton, of course, was a prominent figure during the pioneer baseball era in St. Louis.  He was a member and long-time president of the Empire Club and I believe he was instrumental in developing the relationship between the StLFD and the Empires.  That relationship was most likely used as a way to compensate members of the Empires' first nine, who often were employed by the fire department.

Tip o' the hat to Steve Pona, who sent me the link to the article.  

Now That's A Great Nickname

The St. Jacob's Hard Hitters and the Highland Invincibles crossed bats [in Highland, Illinois] today.  But eight innings were played on account of the rain.  The score stood 20 to 13 in favor of the Invincibles.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 16, 1884


How can you not love a club named the Highland Invincibles?  That is just a fantastic name for a baseball club. And the Hard Hitters isn't too shabby either.  Who wouldn't want to watch a game between the Invincibles and the Hard Hitters?  

Clifford Virgil Matteson

C.V. Matteson

[Clifford Virgil] Matteson was born in Seville in 1861, one of seven children.  His mother, Mary, was a Hulbert, one of the pioneer families of Westfield Township.  Their home sheltered runaway slaves, and for this the Hulberts faced much derision from neighbors and fellow church members. 

Matteson's father, Horace, was a schoolteacher who boarded with the Hulberts...Horace later worked for Ohio Farmers Insurance, now Westfield Group, and reportedly wrote one of the company's first policies in 1848.  He eventually operated a dry goods store in Seville, which C.V. took over. 

Matteson's sister, also Mary, traveled the world with her husband, Hollis, in his work for the YMCA.  Her letters and memoirs are on file in the Harvard University library.  She noted her brother was a gifted storyteller--and marksman.  He was said to have owned the Medina County record for clay pigeon shooting, once hitting 50 of 50. 

His eye for the strike zone probably wowed them on the local baseball circuit, where town rivalries were taken very seriously.  Big-league competition is a different matter.  In his first and last game, Matteson allowed nine hits, three walks and struck out three.  After pitching six innings, he finished the game in center field.  He went 0-4 in the batter's box that day... 

How a 22-year-old kid from Seville was handed the baseball on that day 125 years ago this summer is a mystery.  Maybe an upstart team in an upstart league was a small-town player's only shot. 

He went on to a short stint in the minors in 1886 with the Augusta (Georgia) Browns.  Matteson was 1-1 on the mound and 1-10 at the plate.  Sometime after that, he must have come home to Seville to join his dad at the store and start a family.  He was active in civic groups and loved to hunt and fish. 

Matteson was serving his second term as village mayor when he died in 1931 at age 70.  His wife passed away a few years before.   

He had attended "an entertainment" in the town hall, put on as a fire department fundraiser.  The newspaper report said he ate a late dinner, laughed with friends and family over the jokes in the firemen's show, and died early the next morning of "acute indigestion..." 

Of his early life as a young man, the obituary said only that Matteson's "early days were marked by his activity as a baseball player" and he "retained his interest in the national pastime to the end."

-The Medina (Ohio) Gazette, July 15, 2009


The above comes from an article written by John Gladden and the photo comes from Gladden's blog.  Gladden did an outstanding job of putting the story together so I encourage you to head over to his site or the online version of the Gazette and read the whole thing.

SABR's Biographical Committee had a short piece on Matteson in their March/April 1998 newsletter.  Come to find out, Richard Malatzky, one of the editors of Base Ball Pioneers, 1850-1870, was the one who figured out who Matteson was and found all of his biographical information.  That might not sound like much but when all you have to go on is a name and the name is wrong (Matteson was originally identified as C.V. Matterson), it took a great deal of research to figure everything out.

My hat's off to both John and Richard for their great work in putting together all of this information.

Matteson's grave

There is an entry for Matteson at Find A Grave that was put together by Carol Tessein.  Interestingly, while all references and records I've seen refer to Matteson as Clifford Virgil Matteson, his gravestone identifies him as Virgil Clifford Matteson.  

The 1884 Maroons: All To Pieces

There were 1,500 people present to witness the St. Louis Unions defeat the Cincinnati Unions for the third time this week.  The visitors presented Bradley and Kelly as their battery, while for the home team Matteson, their new pitcher, and Brennan filled the points.  Until the fourth inning Bradley did the twirling, but being hit hard, gave way to Sylvester, who held the home batters down.  Matteson, the new St. Louis pitcher, was hit very hard by the visitors, and it was found prudent to put in Taylor, Baker coming in to support him.  The game was an uninteresting one, as the Cincinnati boys went all to pieces, making some very costly errors, their batting being much heavier than in previous games.  The hoe team batting was heavy, while their fielding game was not up to the regular standard.  The main feature of the game was Taylor's fine drive over the left field fence for a home run, and Burns' line drive out in right field, the ball going clear to fence, among the buggies, and on which he came home with ease. 

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 14, 1884


This was Clifford Matteson's first and only big league game and he didn't exactly cover himself with glory.  I'll have more on Matteson tomorrow.  

The 1884 Maroons: The Contest Was Close And Interesting

The St. Louis and Cincinnati Unions came together yesterday for the third time this week in the presence of about 2,000 spectators.  The contest was a close and interesting one.  The batting on both sides was somewhat weak, the home team only securing four safe hits from Burns, who pitched with marked effectiveness, striking out nine men, while his support by Schwartz was excellent.  The home team had Taylor again in the box, and, although pitching two successive games, the visitors only secured six hits off his delivery.  Harbidge scored three hits of the six, including a two-bagger.  The visitors obtained their runs in the first inning on a two-baser by Harbidge and a single by Sylvester, with the aid of a wild pitch by Taylor.  The home team got three runs in the sixth on hits by Dunlap and Rowe and a costly error by Crane, who let the ball hit his foot and bound away out to right field.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 13, 1884

The 1884 Maroons: Bradley Shuts Down The Maroons

There was 3,500 people out to witness yesterday's game, which was one of the prettiest seen on any diamond in St. Louis this season.  Bradley pitched a wonderful game for the visitors, and was supported by Kelly in excellent style, while the fielding of the whole nine was perfect, not an error being charged against them.  The home team presented Taylor and Baker, who did creditable work throughout.  Their support in the field, however, was not up to their regular standard.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 12, 1884

The 1884 Maroons: George Washington Bradley Tomorrow

The St. Louis and Cincinnati Unions played an inning and a half yesterday afternoon and were compelled to stop by rain.  In the first inning each side scored two.  In the second the St. Louis side were blanked.  When the game was called the visitors had three men on base and O'Leary at the bat... 

George Washington Bradley tomorrow.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 10, 1884


Bradley, the hero of 1876, still must have been very popular in St. Louis.  The Globe had mentioned the fact that he was in town with Cincinnati for several days running.  The last sentence I quote above is a culmination of their attempt to drum up excitement over his return to St. Louis.

Bradley.  Baseball.  Tomorrow (tomorrow, tomorrow...).

The 1884 Maroons: George Washington Bradley, Umpire

The game yesterday afternoon was not a championship contest, as announced.  Holland, the umpire who should have officiated, missed a train in Cincinnati, and failed to arrive.  Manager Dan O'Leary, of the Cincinnati Unions, promptly took advantage of the situation, and produced his book containing the rules to establish that under the circumstances only an exhibition game could be played.  After this point had been argued at length it was finally conceded by Manager Sullivan and Capt. Dunlap, of the St. Louis nine, who presented William Bowman as a competent man to umpire the game.  Not knowing Bowman, O'Leary declined to accept him.  Then Dunlap, who had noticed that Bradley, of the Cincinnati team, who occupied a seat in the grand stand, had been giving points to O'Leary, concluded to call on him to act.  Bradley, realizing how embarrassing the position would be for him, protested at length, but finally yielded when the patience of the crowd had nearly been exhausted.  Donning a St. Louis Union cap, he took his stand, and to the merriment of the crowd called the first ball delivered to Dunlap a strike.  He proved a very accurate and impartial judge, and his decisions were generally highly commended...The game was a very remarkable one.  With 12 hits and a total of 18 bases, the Cincinnati team earned 5 runs, all they made, and with 4 hits and a total of 7 bases the home nine did not earn a run but scored eight through errors on the part of the visitors.  Holland will be on hand to-day, a telegram announcing that he was on a train from Cincinnati having been received last night.  

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 8, 1884


It's kind of odd that Lucas didn't have a couple of local guys on the payroll to umpire St. Louis games.  Regardless, the crowd must have had a great time watching Bradley, a local favorite, umping the game.  

A Great Piece Of Advertising

This is just a fantastic piece of baseball-related advertising from the St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 6, 1884:

Click on the thing to get a good look at it and see how big it was.  Also of note is that the owner of the Simons Hardware Company was E.C. Simons, a pioneer-era St. Louis baseball player who was a member of both the Commercials and the Unions.

Consulting With President Lucas

Mr. A.V. McKim, manager of the Kansas City Union Base Ball Club, was in the city yesterday, consulting with President Lucas and engaging players.  Among those signed for the new club are Wheeler and Hickman, formerly of the St. Louis Reserves; Berry, Shafer, and Harris, formerly of the Altoonas, and Chatterton and Fisher, of the Lynn, Mass., club.  By to-night Mr. McKim expects to have eight more men under contract.  Harry Wheeler will captain the team.  The opening game will be played next Saturday and Sunday, with the Chicago Unions.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 5, 1884


It's interesting to see Lucas' involvement with other clubs.  We've seen it in the past, as Lucas was involved in helping clubs fill their roster at the beginning of the season.  Now, as clubs begin to unravel, we're seeing it again.

The 1884 Maroons: The Superior Work Of The St. Louis Unions

Costly errors at critical points, inability to bat Taylor's pitching, and the superior work of the St. Louis Unions, both in the field and at the bat, caused the home nine the most disastrous defeat they have ever known.  Gross, the famous catcher, who made such a brilliant record with the Philadelphia League team last year, appeared with the Chicagos for the first time, and, while showing lack of recent practice, held his reputation as a steady player and good batsman.  McLaughlin, the new second baseman of the Chicagos, also made his first appearance.  His work was neat at points but two inexcusable errors dampened the favor with which the audience seemed disposed to regard him.  Daly's pitching was as remarkable as ever, even the hard hitters of the St. Louis nine being unable to do any effective work against him.  For the visitors Dunlap's work at second and Baker's as catcher were superb, the latter being particularly praiseworthy for his support of Taylor's difficult pitching.  Shafer distinguished himself in right by taking three difficult catches.  

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 4, 1884


After losing two of their last six, the Maroons got back to their winning ways.  As to the question of What Did Dunlap Do?  I looks like nothing but I'm going to retire this gimmick because I've gotten a bit tired of it.

Schedule Changes

A change was made yesterday in the Union Association schedule, so that the games the St. Louis Unions were to have played the Cincinnatis here on Sunday, Monday, Wednesday and Thursday next will be played on Saturday, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday next.  The change is made so as not to clash with the opening dates of the St. Louis Jockey Club.

-St.  Louis Globe-Democrat, June 4, 1884


One day I'm going to have to write something about how popular horse racing was in St. Louis.  It goes back to the founding of the city and the first French settlers in the city.  Those folks loved their horse racing and the tradition carried on throughout the 19th century.

Lucas Sets Up The Cowboys

President Lucas, of the Union Base Ball Association, arrived home last night at 9:20, after a week's visit to Altoona, where he wound up the affairs of the local club, and arranged for the transfer of the best talent in the team to Kansas City.  He says he will meet the officers of the Kansas City Club in this city on Wednesday to complete the transfer, and one week later the Kansas City Club will be in the field with a strong team.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 3, 1884


The Kansas City Unions were the first major league club in KC history and it appears that the club was profitable.  They were not, however, a good team, finishing 16-63.

Known Unknowns

John W. O'Connell...and J.D. Fitzgibbon...say the game was brought here by men who had played baseball in the East, but that the first game ever played here took place in what was then Northwest St. Louis and on the ground now occupied by Carr Square Park.

-The National Game



I can't tell you how many times I've read the above sentence but last night, as I looked at it again, it held new meaning for me.

With the discovery of new primary source material from the Missouri Republican, I've begun to re-evaluate some of the things I believe about the origins of the game in St. Louis and how the game developed in the city from 1859 to 1865.  I've found evidence that conflicts with some of the more important secondary sources and evidence that conflicts with some of the conclusions I've reach after years of research.  I think it's important for me to remember that there are a lot of things that I don't know with any degree of certainty about baseball in St. Louis in the antebellum and Civil War eras.  All I can do is gather all the evidence that I can, weigh that evidence and try to reach logical conclusions.

One of the things that I believed, up until the last week or so, was that the first baseball game was played by the Cyclone Club at Lafayette Park sometime during the summer of 1859.  The weight of the evidence that I had seen supported that idea.  Now, after looking through the Republican, I can say that there is evidence to suggest that the first game wasn't played at Lafayette Park.  O'Connell and Fitzgibbons, two pioneer era players, stated to Al Spink that the first game was played at Carr Park and that testimony is very important.  Why did I dismiss it?

Carr Park was the playing grounds of the Morning Star Club, who we believe were playing town ball at the park as early as 1857.  Richard Perry, a member of the Morning Stars, stated in 1887 that his club was the first to play baseball in St. Louis.  Interestingly, the earliest reference I have to a St. Louis baseball club comes from the St. Louis Daily Bulletin of June 6, 1860, and mentions the organization of the Morning Stars.  The Protoball Chronology has a reference to an unnamed club in September of 1859, that is neither the Cyclones nor the Morning Stars.  I have some problems with the sourcing of that reference but it comes from Craig Waff and therefore should be taken seriously.

My point is that if we just relied on the primary source material, we'd have to argue that either the Morning Stars or Waff's unnamed club was the first baseball team in St. Louis, rather than the Cyclones.  I've yet to find a reference to the Cyclone Club prior to August 1860 and believe me when I tell you that I've looked.  That doesn't mean that the evidence to support my conclusions doesn't exist or that I've exhausted every source but it does mean that I don't have a lot of evidence to support my conclusions other than some secondary sources and logic.  And now I'm finding primary source evidence that is poking holes in my logic.

Another thing: I believe that town ball was played in St. Louis in the 1840s, at the latest.  I have absolutely no primary source evidence of that.  The earliest town ball reference I have for St. Louis comes from 1860.  There are insinuations in the contemporary press and exertions in the secondary sources that support or imply that town ball was played much earlier.  Also, I have plenty of evidence to support the idea that town ball was played in the region as early as the 1820s, so it's not a great leap to believe that it was played in St. Louis at the same time.  But I can't prove it.

And there, as they say, is the rub.  There's a lot of stuff that I believe about the origins and development of the game in St. Louis that I can't prove.  I can argue for a certain conclusion and show you all the evidence that I have that leads me to reach such a conclusion but argument is not proof.  I can argue that O'Connell and Fitzgibbons, when they said baseball was first played at Carr Park, were talking about town ball and the Morning Star Club but I can't prove that.  Somebody else can look at their statement and conclude that they were talking about the New York game.  That argument would be just as valid as mine.  

What I have to accept is the fact that this is a process.  I can sit down right now and write a three volume history of 19th century baseball in St. Louis but the first volume would be out of date by the time I finished writing it.  The research is ongoing and continuing to bear fruit.  It doesn't matter to me that new evidence changes what I believe because my goal is to find the truth.  I will change my beliefs and conclusions to fit the facts that I discover, regardless of whether or not those changes conflict with previously held beliefs and conclusions.  My commitment is to the truth rather than to my own ego or to any historical school of thought.

Our understanding of what was happening in St. Louis during the pioneer era is much, much greater than it was just two years ago.  I've discovered all kinds of primary source evidence over the last few years that have really shed light on the subject and have enabled us to work with facts rather than supposition.  If I was writing the St. Louis chapter of the Base Ball Pioneer book today, it would be a bit different than the one I submitted two years ago.  And I think it would be different again if I was writing it two years from now.  The research is ongoing and my shifting of the evidence never stops.

In the end, I have to continuously remember what I know and what I know I don't know.  I have to remember that there is fact and there is supposition.  At the moment fact and truth are destroying some of my suppositions and assumptions.  And that is a good thing.  Does it mean that I have to go back and rewrite a bunch of stuff that I thought I was finished with?  Yes, it does.  But that's okay because I'm just trying to get the thing right.        

Interesting To Many Of Our Citizens

There will be a friendly match of Base Ball between the Commercial and Cyclone Base Ball Clubs, on Wednesday, September 4th, at 4 o'clock, P.M., on the Empire's Ground.  The game will be according to the United States Convention rules, now so extensively played in all our principal cities, and will undoubtedly be very interesting to many of our citizens who have never seen the game.  Were there a suitable ground in some of our public parks, it would be much more agreeable to lady spectators, and it is to be hoped our Common Council, or Park Commissioners, will give this their early attention.  Players will take the market street cars at a quarter after three o'clock and go to Twenty fourth or Twenty sixth street, thence south five blocks.

-Missouri Republican, August 26, 1860


Why wasn't this game played at Lafayette Park?  If the Cyclones had been playing at the park since their inception, one would think that the game would have been played on their grounds.  Why did they play it on the Empires' ground?

As I talked about last week, there's the very real possibility that Lafayette Park was not used as a baseball grounds until 1861 and I think this supports that idea.  The Republican writes about the need for a suitable baseball grounds in the public parks and, if the Lafayette Grounds existed in 1860, wouldn't that have been suitable for the lady spectators?

At this point, I'm not sure what to think.      

A Empire/Commercials Match From 1860

The match game of Base Ball between the Commercial and Empire Club, resulted in favor of the Commercial.  Owing to the late hour at which the game was commenced, only five innings could be played, on which the game was decided.

-Missouri Republican, October 10, 1860


According to the St. Louis Daily Bulletin, this game was played on October 7, 1860.  Note that Merritt Griswold was the umpire.  

Happy New Year

The best photo of 2011

I hope everyone has a great 2012.  May it be better than 2011.  For us Cardinals fans, it can't get any better but I guess we can always hope.

We want the Cup!

And I promise that sometime in 2012, I will finish the series on the 1884 Maroons.

The First Empire-Union Game

Base Ball Match--The following is the result of a match game of base ball played yesterday, on Gamble's Addition, by the Empire and Union Base Ball Clubs of this city: [Unions 15, Empires 14.]

-Missouri Republican, December 20, 1861

I think this is most likely the first game ever played between the Empire and Union clubs.  Tobias wrote that the Unions had organized in 1859 and that this game took place during the "holidays of '60..."  He had the score right but was off by a year.  He also mentions a series of games between the two clubs that took place in "1860 and the early part of '61..."  Again, he was off by a year, as I also now have primary source evidence of the first Empire/Union series taking place in 1862.    

I once had a bit of an email debate with someone about when the Union club was formed and the question of when this particular game was played was central to their argument.  I never believed that this game was played in 1860 and went so far as to look up weather data for the winter of 1860/61 in St. Louis.  Just so you know, the winter of 1860/61 in St. Louis was one of the coldest on record, with a great deal of snowfall.  I don't think anybody was playing baseball in St. Louis that winter.  But now I have conclusive evidence that this game was played in 1861.  I'm not here to say I told you so, but...

In all seriousness, it was important to find an account of this game.  We no longer have to speculate about whether Tobias' timeline was off or if I was reading the source material wrong.  The weight of the primary source evidence supports the idea that the Union club was formed in 1860 and first played the Empires in 1861.  And this is not to be taken as a slam against Tobias, who remains the most significant St. Louis baseball historian of all-time.  While I know that he was working with a lot of the records of the pioneer-era clubs, it's also true that we know that some of the antebellum and Civil War era records were lost by the time Tobias sat down to write his history.  It's obvious that his work is much stronger when dealing with the post-war era and the errors that he makes with regards to the pre-1865 era are not all that significant.  As a human being writing thirty odd years after the fact, he confused some dates and events.  It happens.         

The Fourth Of July 1861

Married vs. Single.--This match which took place at Gamble Lawn, on the morning of the 4th, resulted in a decided victory for the married men.  The players were selected from all the senior organizations of the city, which fact imparted an unusual interest in the result of the game, as was shown by the large number of spectators present.  The play on both sides was highly commendable-in the field, as well as at the bat-and resulted in a score of 55 for the married and 32 for the single men...

-Missouri Republican, July 7, 1861


So much interesting stuff here.

First, there were a number of games played between the married and single club members in 1861.  There were at least three games played between the married and single members of the Cyclones, Commercials and Morning Star clubs and there was actually a bit of 19th century trash talking going on in the press after the single men won the first two games.  I think it's significant that the majority of games that I have a record for in 1861 were not games between senior clubs but either matches between junior clubs or a muffin game between a conglomeration of senior clubs.  I would imagine that, as May 1861 ended, the senior clubs had a difficult time finding enough men to stock their nine, as club members began going off to war.  The Civil War did not end baseball in St. Louis but there is no doubt that it made it more difficult to organize a senior club.

The second thing here is the mention that the Cyclones, Commercials, Morning Stars and Empires were the only senior clubs in St. Louis in the summer of 1861.  That's a very useful piece of information.  I have a list of about ten clubs that were competing in the summer of 1860 and the fact that there were only four in the summer of 1861 is again evidence of the negative effect of the war on baseball in St. Louis.  There were numerous junior clubs playing in 1861 but I think it's obvious that the older ballplayers had more important things to deal with in that summer.  Neither the Cyclones nor the Morning Stars survived the 1861 season.  

The last thing I want to point out is the significance of this game.  It was played on the Fourth of July 1861.  Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12, Camp Jackson fell on May 10 and, by early June, it was obvious that the war was going to be contested in Missouri.  The battle of Boonville was on June 17, the battle of Carthage would be fought on July 5 and the first battle of Bull Run would be fought in a few weeks.  It must have been a rather bittersweet holiday.  Clubs had already started to dissolve as political division and military recruitment and responsibilities began to take their toll.  I look at that box score and see men who would fight on both sides of the war.  But for one day, and possibly for the last time, they came together to celebrate the birth of their country and play the game they loved.                     

And Now You Know The Rest Of The Story

The Match Game of Base Ball Interrupted--The match game of base ball, on Gamble avenue, yesterday, was brought to a somewhat abrupt termination.  While the game was in progress a German Home Guard came upon the field and persisted in remaining in the way of the players.  After having been asked two or three times to retire behind the line he was then taken by the arm by the person appointed to keep the field clear, when he (the Home Guard) attempted to strike him.  The blow was returned, the German going down.  He then went away, and in about half an hour afterwards a detachment of Home Guards came and surrounded the whole field, creating quite a panic among a number of ladies and gentlemen who were assembled to witness the game.  The order was given to take all the players to Turners' Hall as prisoners, but Mr. Griswold (formerly a captain in the Home Guards) and a few others persuaded the acting captain of the Home Guards to withdraw his men from the field.  The Guards were withdrawn.

-Missouri Republican, August 23, 1861


One of the interesting things about the information that I've recently found in the Republican is that it contradicts a lot of the information about the Civil War era as presented by E.H. Tobias.  I have a great deal of respect for Tobias and regard him as one of the pioneers of baseball history.  His work, appearing in The Sporting News in 1895 and 1896, is invaluable and he had access to a great deal of primary source material that has been lost to us.  However, as I find more and more primary source material from the period, I'm beginning to find errors in Tobias' account and his conclusions regarding baseball in St. Louis during the Civil War.

The description of the game above is one example.  Tobias' account is much more dramatic and he gets several key facts about the game wrong.  The two most significant things he was wrong about was the date of the game (describing it as the Empire Club's anniversary game, which was held in April) and the motivation for the conflict (that he describes as involving a pennant flying over a tent that the Home Guard mistakenly believed was a pro-Succession flag).  While Tobias was correct that a baseball game was broken up by the Home Guard and that Merritt Griswold played a role in easing a tense situation, this was not the Empires' first anniversary game and it had nothing much to do with Civil War politics.

Tobias' account of the game makes for a much better story but his version was not entirely accurate.  That saddens me a bit because it was probably my favorite story from the St. Louis pioneer era and it turns out to not be exactly true.  I guess my favorite story from the period now is the one about Alex Crosman getting eaten by sharks.  

Choice Of Ground

Lafayette Park in 1859 or 1860

Mr. Chester presented the petition of the "Cyclone Base Ball Club," praying the Council to grant them the privilege of using for their playground the vacant space formerly reserved for the military at Lafayette Park, and also the right of leveling and smoothing the same for that purpose... 

[Mr. Wells] presented petition of C.L. Kretschmar, W. Delafield, et. al., members of the Commercial Base Ball Club, asking permission to use the grounds in Lafayette Park, as petitioned for by the Cyclone Club.

-Missouri Republican, March 5, 1861

Mr. Nelson from Special Committee, to whom was referred the petitions of certain Base Ball Clubs, asking permission to use Lafayette Park grounds for the purpose of playing, reported that the Cyclone have choice of ground and are permitted the first use of the ground, provided they make the improvements necessary for the game at their own expense.  The other club can have the second choice of ground.  Report accepted.

-Missouri Republican, March 9, 1861

Base Ball.--The Commercial and Cyclone Base Ball Clubs have, at a considerable expense, fitted up their play ground in Lafayette Park, and will commence playing the coming week.  The Commercials practice Mondays and Thursdays; the Cyclone Tuesdays and Fridays of each week, at 4 o'clock.  The first day of their season of the new ground (Monday) both clubs will be out and play a friendly game, to commence at half past three o'clock.

-Missouri Republican, April 28, 1861


It has always been my understanding that the Cyclones played in Lafayette Park starting in 1859 and that the park was most likely the site of the first Regulation game of baseball in St. Louis.  Obviously, other bat and ball games had been played in St. Louis prior to the advent of the Cyclones (the Morning Stars, for example, were playing town ball at Carr Park by 1858, at the latest, and town ball was most likely being played in the city by the 1840s) but the Cyclones were the first to play the New York game and, according to most sources, there grounds were located at Lafayette Park.  While they played a match game at the Fairgrounds, I've never seen a source mention that their home grounds were anywhere other than Lafayette Park.  The St. Louis Republic of April 21, 1895, quoting former Cyclone members, stated that "The grounds occupied by the club were in the center of Lafayette Park and something like $600 had been expended in putting them in order.  The grand stand was simply a tent which sheltered those who were awaiting their turn at bat or some of the many visitors who came out to see the game."  Several members of the club lived in the Lafayette Park neighborhood and it was a natural place for them to play.

However, the above information from the Republican makes me doubt the idea that the Cyclones always played at Lafayette Park.  My understanding of the source material is that the Cyclones organized in the summer of 1859 and they immediately petitioned for the use of Lafayette Park, making improvements to the grounds to make them suitable for baseball.  But we now know that the club did not petition the Common Council for use of the park until March of 1861.  It's entirely possible that the club used the park prior to this and that the source material confused the issue of when and why the club petitioned the council.  Or it means that baseball wasn't played at the park until 1861.  It's difficult to tell with the information I have at the moment.

My best guess is that the Cyclones played at Lafayette Park prior to 1861 and that the issue before the Common Council was about a dispute between the Cyclones and the Commercials over use of the park.  My reading of the material from the Republican makes me think that, with the growth of the popularity of the game in St. Louis in 1860 and the increase in the number of clubs, there was a conflict over the use of the best grounds.  Specifically, the Commercials wanted to use grounds that were, up to that time, the exclusive territory of the Cyclones.  That conflict was taken before the appropriate government agency and the dispute was settled in favor of the Cyclones, providing the club made certain improvements to the park.  Regardless of the significance of the dispute, it's obvious that it did not hurt the relationship between the two clubs, who played a friendly match at Lafayette Park in late April to open their season.

It should also be mentioned that the information found in the Republican helps us to date the military takeover of Lafayette Park in 1861.  We know that Union troops took over the park sometime in the summer of 1861 and baseball activities there ceased.  Obviously this did not take place prior to the end of April 1861.  The conflict at Camp Jackson didn't take place until May and things really didn't come to a head in Missouri until June.  There is evidence that games were played at Lafayette Park as late as June 7 but games in early July, that normally would have been played there, were being played at Gamble Lawn.  So, if I had to guess, I'd say that Union troops took control of Lafayette Park sometime in June of 1861.            

The 1884 Maroons: Things Are Looking Bad

The St. Louis Base Ball team lost its second game this season, out of twenty-four played, to the Chicago Unions today, after an exciting contest of ten innings.  Taylor and Baker formed the battery for the visitors, and Daily and Krieg did the fine work for Chicago.  During the first five innings the home nine failed to get a base, while their opponents scored four runs.  They then tied the game by two runs in the sixth on a base on balls, a hit and two wild throws, and two more in the seventh on Krieg's hit and three errors.  Daily made the winning run and ended the game in the tenth inning by a base on balls, Ellick's clean hit and a wild pitch.  The St. Louis nine made their runs in the second and sixth innings, by hard hitting, coupled with costly errors by the Chicago infield.  They had men on bases in every inning but one, and their field play was perfect until near the close of the contest, when wild throws lost them the game.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 2, 1884


With their second lose in six games, the Maroons were falling apart.  Lucas needed to go to Providence and get Charlie Sweeney drunk.  Up four nothing, they gave up two in the sixth and two in the seventh.  Then in the tenth, they lose by a walk, a Joe Ellick hit and a wild pitch.  That's a tough way to lose.  And to make matters worse, they lost a half game in the standings, their lead falling from 6.5 games to 6.  Somebody buy Sweeney some drinks.

As if things couldn't get any worse, I think Fred was in a slump.  What Did Dunlap Do?  He had one measly hit, after going hitless in the last game.  The T-800 needed a tune-up.    

Shamefully Treated On The East Side

The Owls complain that they were shamefully treated in East St. Louis yesterday, when they crossed the river to play the National Reserves.  Complaints of this character are very frequent from clubs visiting East St. Louis, and unless managers of the local nines do not correct abuses complained of, it will be advisable for all outside clubs to ignore challenges from that quarter.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 2, 1884


Yeah.  We here on the east side of the river have been having to listen to the whining of the people on the wrong side of the river for a long time.  We've learned to tune them out.     

Merry Christmas And The Happiest Of Holidays To Everyone

It's not Christmas without Darlene Love.

The Black Stockings Romp

The colored ball tossers, the Black Stockings and the Athletics, played a game yesterday morning at Compton Avenue Park, the Black Stockings winning by a score of 20 to 2.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 2, 1884


Would it have killed the Globe to give us a box score?  In their June 2nd issue, they published a box score for a game between two American Association reserve teams, a game involving the Lucas Amateurs and some random game between clubs from Akron and Evansville, as well as the Maroons game.  They also published a couple of paragraphs on a muffin game in Mexico, Missouri.  But they give the Black Stockings one sentence.  

Braggin' Rights

The Pana Meteors, champions of Illinois, play the Prickly Ash, champions of Missouri, to-day at Amateur Park.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 1, 1884

I post this in honor of the Braggin' Rights basketball game that was held yesterday.  Can't beat a good Illinois/Missouri game.  And I don't even want to talk about the SIUC/SIUE game.

Pana, by the way, is about a hundred miles or so northeast of St. Louis, in the central part of Illinois.

The 1884 Maroons: Roster Moves

The Unions have released Perry Werden and laid off Tom Sullivan for two weeks.  Sullivan's legs are in bad condition.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 1, 1884


It's been speculated that Werden had suffered an arm injury, which would explain his lack of use by the Maroons and his release.  He would come back to have a decent career in the major leagues as a first baseman but his major league pitching career was pretty much over.  Sullivan, on the other hand, was finished as a major league baseball player.

The 1884 Maroons: Whitewash

The St. Louis Unions whitewashed the Keystones yesterday, in the presence of about 1,500 spectators.  Hodnett's pitching was so effective that the visitors made but three safe hits, and his support was perfect in every respect, excepting an excusable muff by Dickerson after a long run.  Bakely was batted by the home team for eleven hits, including two-baggers by Gleason and Shafer.  Out of a total of seven errors charged to the Keystones Luff was guilty of three.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, June 1, 1884


Charlie Hodnett was obviously the star of this game, throwing a three hitter and shutting out the Keystones.  Early biographical information on Hodnett is a bit sketchy and while sources agree that he was born in 1861, the exact date is unknown.  Also unknown is his place of birth, with some sources stating he was born in St. Louis and others that he was born in Dubuque.

According to his entry in Major League Baseball Profiles, Volume One, which was written by David Nemec and David Ball, "Charlie Hodnett came to the Browns in the spring of 1883 from the St. Louis sandlots.  His brother Jack was also a prominent local amateur, and his father, John, helped found the St. Louis Times, a Democratic organ, in 1866.  Both brothers worked as printers at their father's paper early in life...[In 1884,] Hodnett started for the St. Louis Maroons on Opening Day...More than a month later he sustained the UA club's first defeat after it had sprinted to a ML-record 20-0 start when he lost 8-1..."  So there's a good bit of trivia for you:  Hodnett won the Maroons' first game and suffered their first loss.

Hodnett pitched his last game for the Maroons on July 4, 1884, taking the loss in a 12-1 defeat.  The Davids write that "Though kept on Maroon's payroll until September 1884, Hodnett never pitched in another official game.  The likelihood is that he was already suffering from the rheumatoid condition that reduced him to a cripple within a few years.  By 1886 Hodnett was able to walk only with the aid of a cane and relied on occasional benefit games as his main source of income...[He] died  a pauper in the St. Louis poor house, where he had been sent after his family could no longer care for him."

Hodnett died on April 25, 1890, at the young age of 29.  His major league career lasted only twenty-two games.  With the Browns and the Maroons, he started eighteen games, going 14-4 with a 1.88 ERA and an ERA+ of 165.  He accumulated 3.4 WAR in his brief career.  Breaking into the majors at the age of 22, it appears that Hodnett was a fine, young talent who had a decent career cut short by illness.

And as to the What Did Dunlap Do portion of our program:  Fred went 0-5 and only had three chances in the field, proving that the King of All Second Basemen was human.        

The 1884 Maroons Face A Pitcher With A Lame Arm

About 2,000 persons attended the base ball game between the Keystones, of Philadelphia and the St. Louis Unions at Union Park yesterday afternoon.  The visitors put in Weaver to pitch in response to a generally expressed desire to see him in the points.  He was, however, in no condition, being suffering from a lame arm, and was unable to do much more than toss the ball to the batsman.  On one occasion he stopped a hit with his left hand, and there was a chance for a double play, but he was unable to throw, and in an effort to pitch the ball to Peak sent it low out to center.  He held the points until the eighth inning, when he retired to left, Hoover went to third and McCormick undertook to do the twirling.  The features of the game was a home-run by Gleason, double-plays by Rowe and Quinn of the home team, and Hoover and McGuinness, of the visitors.  The home nine scored 20 hits with a total of 35 bases.  A total of 6 singles represented the visitors work at the bat.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 31, 1884


I just don't think that it was a good idea to throw a dead-armed pitcher against the 1884 Maroons.  

And What Did Dunlap Do against a pitcher with a lame arm?  About what you would expect.  He had three hits, including two doubles, and scored four runs.  Doesn't really seem fair, does it?  

The 1884 Maroons: Sounds Like A Heck Of A Catch

Between 1,500 and 2,000 people witnessed the second game between the Keystone Club, of Philadelphia, and the St. Louis Unions, played yesterday afternoon at Union Park.  As in the first meeting between the same nines the local team won.  The visitors were outbatted and outfielded, but by bunching hits earned most of their runs.  William Sullivan, a new discovery, occupied the pitcher's box for the home team for six innings.  He showed that he was a promising twirler, but hardly a safe one to put against experienced players.  In the third inning Dickerson opportunely became sick and Taylor was uniformed and sent out to left field.  Then in hte seventh inning Taylor's opportune presence was utilized by his going to the box, Sullivan retiring to right and Shafer moving to left.  Dickerson said his trouple was neuralgia.  Some unsympathetic people intimated that his affliction was superinduced by the hard hitting the Keystones were doing on Sullivan's delivery.  The visitors presented Bakely and Gillen.  Weaver had been announced to pitch, but was indisposed.  Bakely was hit for 17 singles and a total of 22 bases, and Gillen, whose support was brilliant in many respects, allowed three balls to pass him.  Brennan had one passed ball charged against him, but handled the widely differing deliveries of Sullivan and Taylor with equal ease and reliability. 

The feature of the game was a catch by Dunlap that deservedly elicited general and prolonged applause.  In the second inning, when Dunlap was playing about ten yards from second, Cross hit a high-line ball almost directly over second, the hit appearing to be safe beyond doubt.  To the astonishment of the entire assemblage, Dunlap ran back, sprang into the air, and with a right hand reach performed the seemingly impossible feat of capturing ball.  The performance has never been surpassed on a St. Louis ball ground.  

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 30, 1884


So...what DID Dunlap do?  Just your regular, old two for six with three runs scored.  He also turned a double play in the field.  And he made a running, jumping one-handed catch of a line drive that was hit ten yards to his right.  No big deal.

The reference to "William Sullivan, a new discovery" is interesting and may point to an error in the records.  It looks to me that the record has Sleeper Sullivan pitching this game for the Maroons.  The problem is that William Sullivan can not be Sleeper Sullivan.  Sleeper Sullivan's name was Thomas Jefferson Sullivan not William and he was not in any way a new discovery.  Sleeper Sullivan had played in the major leagues since 1881 and was with the Brown Stockings in 1882.  He was a popular player in St. Louis and I think that the Globe's baseball reporter would have recognized him and identified him properly.  

Unless there was some kind of attempt at deception going on, we have to take the reporting at face value and conclude that William Sullivan, rather than Sleeper Sullivan, pitched this game.  But Baseball-Reference does not list William Sullivan on the Maroons 1884 roster, although, when you search for William Sullivan, you get this.  Something is wrong here and my gut feeling tells me that the error is on our end.  

I'm going to look into this some more and see what I can find but, right now, I think that the record is in error.  Maybe the Globe has it wrong or I'm missing something but I don't think so.  We'll see.  

Note:  This gets curiouser and curiouser.  In Major League Baseball Profiles, 1871-1900, Volume One, David Nemec states that Sleeper Sullivan pitched in the game on May 29, 1884.  Peter Morris, on the other hand, states at his website that there is "overwhelming evidence" that William Sullivan, rather than Sleeper Sullivan, pitched in that game.  I'll check in with both men but I'm more than inclined to agree with Peter on this one.

Note the second:  Talked to Peter about this and he shared some references that I hadn't seen about William Sullivan and the May 29th game.  In my opinion, the evidence is pretty conclusive that this game should be credit to William Sullivan, rather than Sleeper Sullivan, and Peter has passed all of this on to the powers that be in order to get the record corrected.    

Dunlap's Trickery

A very amusing joke was played on the Altoona catcher by Dunlap.  In a recent game of St. Louis vs. Altoona, there was a foul ball knocked close to the catcher, but near a bench.  The Altoona catcher was just about putting his hand on it, when Dunlap hollowed, "Move that bench, quick!"  The catcher looked to see the bench and missed the ball.

-Cleveland Herald, May 29, 1884

An Earnest Umpire

Mapledoram is in earnest about his umpiring, and will not allow his decisions to be questioned.  Yesterday he fined Dunlap $10 for what he considered improper conduct.  At Cincinnati he fined Bradley $0, and when appealed to reduce the penalty to $25, he peremptorily refused.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 28, 1884


I'm not so concerned with Blake Mapledoram and his earnestness as I am with the idea of Fred Dunlap "questioning" an umpire.  Given Dunlap's nature, I doubt that it was as polite an encounter as the Globe makes it sound.  

We should really add this to the What Did Dunlap Do? file:  In the first game against the Keystones, Dunlap went off on an umpire and got fined.  

The 1884 Maroons: Paradoxical Results

The Keystone Club, of Philadelphia, made their first appearance in St. Louis yesterday, at the Union Grounds, where they met the St. Louis Unions, and were defeated by a score of 8 to 4.  About 2,500 spectators witnessed the game, which was a peculiar illustration of the chances of base ball, inasmuch as the visitors outbatted and outfielded the home team and still failed of success.  They made only three errors, but all were costly, and, together with a fortunate bunching of hits and admirable base running by the home team, brought about the singular result.  The home team obtained a commanding lead in the first two innings, which rendered the victory almost a foregone conclusion and dwarfed interest in the contest.  Bakely and Gillen were the visitors' battery, while Taylor and Baker were presented for St. Louis.  Dunlap, Shaffer and Dickerson, who bat in the order named, made seven of the nine hits scored by the home team, and each of the three made a two-bagger.  This largely accounts for the somewhat paradoxical result.  Bakely displayed considerable speed, and was well supported by Gillen.  Taylor did not pitch with his usual vigor or effectiveness, and was hammered for eleven hits, including two-baggers by Bakely and one by Clements.  Baker's work behind the bat was not so neat as usual, still he did not let a ball go by him.  His two errors consist of a low throw to second and a high one to third.  Quinn got one of Whitehead's swiftest throws on his right thumb, and as a result has a bad hand.  

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 28, 1884


So the Maroons responded to their first defeat with a victory over Philadelphia.  Their record stood at 21-1.

These UA clubs were an unimpressive lot and the Keystones were as unimpressive as any of them.  They had a young Jack Clements and an old Levi Meyerle and not much else to recommend them.  The fact that they eventually picked up Clarence Cross doesn't speak well of the talent on the club.

As the Globe mentioned, the top of the order carried the Maroons' offense in this game, which leads us to our  What Did Dunlap Do? shtick.  Fred went two for four with a double and two runs scored.  And I'm almost becoming numb to Dunlap's offensive proficiency.  Two for four, a double and two runs scored is a darn good game but, for Dunlap, it's kind of a quiet, normal day at the plate.  I just can't imagine watching someone today having the year that Dunlap did in 1884.

Okay, that's not exactly true.  We have recently seen a season similar to Dunlap's 1884 season.  It was Barry Bonds in 2001.  Look at Dunlap's numbers and compare them to Bonds.  Note Dunlap's 258 OPS+ and Bonds' 259 OPS+.                  

The Union Grounds

Dwayne Isgrig sent me the above photo of the marker that was placed by the local SABR chapter at the site of the Union Grounds.  Click on the photo to get a better view and you can see how the grounds were laid out.  While we don't have a photo of the ballpark, from what Dwayne told me, Joan Thomas put this together based on newspaper accounts.  Our Bob Broeg chapter of SABR had done a great job placing these markers around town to commemorate the location of historical ballparks in St. Louis.

One thing of note here is that this marker shows the short left field fence at the Union Grounds.  Also, it looks like dead center is a bit short as well.  However, right-center looks really deep and there appears to be a lot of foul territory along the outfield foul lines.  So based on this and the fact that Baseball-Reference lists the park as run-neutral, I'd hesitate to call the place a bandbox, as some in the press did in 1884.

Much thanks to Dwayne for passing the photo along.        

Professionals, Part Two

I recently posted a few excerpts from Anthony Lampe's The Background of Professional Baseball in St. Louis, which appeared in the October 1950 issue of the Missouri Historical Society's Bulletin.  One of the more interesting things Lampe wrote about was the early origin of professionalism in St. Louis, which contradicted the conventional wisdom regarding when St. Louis baseball players first started playing for pay but agreed with some of the conclusions that I've made after looking at the evidence.  However, I only shared a bit of what Lampe wrote and, since he had more to say on the subject, I'd like to share some more of his fantastic article:

A few conclusions may be drawn from the 1868 season.  Because of the great interest in the game, St. Louis was obviously destined to enter professional baseball at an early date; early in the season the Unions had actually been professionals, as their sole occupation was playing baseball.  Secondly, Chicago emerged as the natural rival of St. Louis as the key city of the midwest, which would soon challenge them on the diamond, as Eastern clubs had already done.  Thirdly, St. Louis teams lacked only a stronger managerial system to get the players in shape and keep them that way.  The desire for a strong team to represent the city was present, but for some years no organizing genius appeared to take over, partly because of the incompatibility of baseball and gambling.  As baseball grew, betting increased, and gamblers soon had control of the game.

After noting a anti-professional article that appeared in a St. Louis paper in 1870, he went on to write that "This article was undoubtedly printed in the local papers to cast reflections on professional ball players.  Because no individual had yet come forward with the will--and the capital--to bring a professional team to St. Louis, local ball fans were anti-professional, in a sort of sour-grape attitude."

The most important piece of information in Lampe's article is his conclusion that the Union club was paying its players in the late 1860s.  I agree with this conclusion and would add that the Empire club was also most likely compensating its players in some form during this period.  Lampe also believed that this experiment in professionalism was a failure.  He wrote that "When the [1868] season opened the Union Club had been determined to engage in no other work but that of baseball, but as the season progressed game attendance fell off, because of the poor showing of the team.  Lacking financial resources, the team members were forced to find some other means of employment."  The "poor showing" that he was talking about was not the overall performance of the club but rather their showing against the Eastern professional clubs that came to St. Louis in 1868 and handily defeated the best clubs in the city.

I agree that the poor showing against the Eastern professionals had a negative effect on baseball in St. Louis.  However, the reason I believe this is different than the reason that Lampe believed it.  Lampe wrote about the lack of a strong managerial system and the lack of a willful individual to shape professional baseball in St. Louis.  I believe that St. Louis had several individuals who shaped the game during the pioneer era and could be described as strong, willful managers.  Specifically, Asa Smith was a man who had an important impact on St. Louis baseball and helped evolve the game in a positive, forward manner.  Smith attempted to institute a plan to put St. Louis baseball on an even footing with the best clubs in the East but this plan floundered and died after the Unions suffered defeat upon defeat at the hands of the Eastern professionals.  In my opinion, it wasn't a lack of visionary management that doomed the first attempt at creating a professional baseball market in St. Louis.  Rather, it was the lack of success on the field that doomed the vision.  Smith wanted his Union club to compete for the national championship but they simply were not good enough to do so.  He overreached and failed.  This failure tarnished the idea of professionalism in St. Louis.

I don't believe that it was the loses themselves that brought about the failure of Asa Smith's grand plan but rather what the losses said about the plan.  There was a conflict during the pioneer era between the forces that advocated professionalism and the fans, players and clubs that were anti-professionalism.  Smith was obviously on the right side of history but that wasn't evident in 1868.  He advocate what, in St. Louis, were radical changes to the baseball landscape.  Paying players, enclosed ballparks, charging for games, competing against the best clubs in the nation, joining the NABBP, creating a state baseball association, and other innovations which, while common in the East, were new and radical in St. Louis.  There must have been forces lined up against him that fought these changes.  There must have been forces that were hoping and waiting for him to fail so that they could go back to the old way of doing things.

I believe that, in the post-war era, Smith looked at the Eastern clubs, saw how they were doing things and attempted to re-create their organization plan in St. Louis.  It was an attempt to bring St. Louis into the baseball mainstream that obviously failed.  But that failure was not a result of a lack of managerial vision.  If anything, the failure came about because Smith did not take the final, radical step needed to compete against the Eastern powers.  Like the Brown Stockings in 1875, Smith should have looked to the East and bought himself the best players he could find.  Interestingly, Brown Stockings' management was made up largely of former Union club members and they took the step that Smith did not.  They finally succeeded in setting up a professional baseball club in St. Louis where Smith, their former club member, had failed.  But the baseball world of 1875 was not the baseball world of 1868 and what was acceptable to Brown Stockings' management was just too radical for Smith and the Union club in 1868.

Smith, in 1868,  took St. Louis baseball as far as he could.  He recognized that the pioneer era was ending and the professional era was being born.  Smith attempted to bring the old, pioneer era St. Louis clubs into the new age and, in certain ways, succeeded in doing so.  The St. Louis baseball landscape was changed for better because of the work Smith did in the late 1860s.  But it would take his former club mates to create a successful professional club and it would take a German tavern owner to create business model that made professional baseball profitable in St. Louis.       

The 1884 Maroons: A Memorial Day Doubleheader?

The schedule for the Keystones game this week has been changed.  Instead of playing two games on Friday, they will play but one, the second one on the schedule having been changed to Saturday.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 28, 1884

While the Maroons' schedule changed because of the rainy weather in St. Louis, it looks like they had scheduled a doubleheader for May 30th.  I thought this was kind of rare and odd so I checked Game of Inches to see what Peter Morris had to say about the history of the doubleheader:

As Charlie Bevis has reported, the 1880s saw separate-admission doubleheaders become common on holidays.  Initially there were only two such holidays during the season--Decoration Day (now Memorial Day) and Independence Day.  

Prior to this, Morris writes, doubleheaders were usually only played when a cancelled game had to be rescheduled.

So it looks like the Maroons had scheduled a doubleheader for Memorial Day 1884, which fit in with the baseball traditions of the period.  And, yes, I did check to make sure that Memorial Day was observed on May 30th in 1884.  

The 1884 Maroons: Rainchecks

Rainchecks given away at the Union grounds yesterday will be honored both to-morrow and Thursday, when the St. Louis and Keystones play regular championship games.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 26, 1884


This is kind of interesting.  First, the Maroons were issuing rainchecks in 1884.  The practice of issuing rainchecks was not universal at the time and there was some controversy in St. Louis in 1883 when Von der Ahe did not issue them.  Also, there was a story floating around in the late 1880s that Lucas formed the Maroons and the UA after he and a group of friends went to a Browns game in 1883 that got rained out and they were not issued rainchecks.  The fact that the Maroons were handing them out gives a bit of credence to that story.  Not a lot, but a bit.

Secondly, the Maroons' game that got rained out was not a UA game.  The Bostons wouldn't play on Sunday and they rearranged their schedule to get the series in before then.  The Maroons were scheduled to play an exhibition game against the Prickly Ash that day.  It's interesting that Lucas would issue rainchecks for an exhibition game and honor them for a league game.  I understand that Lucas did things a bit differently than others but it's a bit odd.  It's a possibility that this was an attempt to improve attendance, which except for Sunday, was a bit disappointing.