Base Ball Pioneers 1850-1870

Base Ball Pioneers 1850-1870 is now available for pre-order at Amazon and Barnes & Noble.  The latest information that I have is that it will ship around the first week of April, with the possibility that it may come out a few weeks earlier than that.  I haven't gotten my hands on it yet but it's going to be a great book and I encourage you to pick up a copy.

I was lucky to have played a small part in the project and wrote the chapter on the St. Louis pioneer era.  In the chapter, I covered the history of the Cyclone, Morning Star, Empire and Union Clubs as well writing brief biographies of the members of each club.  We had some great editors working on the book and I think that the chapter turned out really well.  While regular readers of this site will be familiar with some of the information that I present, there is a great deal of new research that I included.  If you're interested in 19th century St. Louis baseball history, I don't think you'll find a better overview of the St. Louis pioneer era anywhere in print.    

I'm really looking forward to reading what everybody else has written and can't wait to get my hands on a copy.  I have no doubt that anyone who enjoys reading about the history of 19th century baseball will enjoy it as well.  As we get closer to the publication date, I'll have more information and hopefully an interview or two with some of the other contributors.  But I advise you to pre-order your copy today while supplies last.   

Church Or Base Ball?

The season of the year is here when St. Louis citizens on Sunday toss up a penny to decide if they will take in church or the base ball match.  A great many of them have provided themselves with pennies with heads on both sides.--[Philadelphia Call.  Some St. Louisans attend church in the morning and base ball in the afternoon.]

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 19, 1884

The 1884 Maroons: Administering Another Drubbing

The St. Louis Unions, on yesterday afternoon, gave another exhibition of heavy batting, and administered a third drubbing to the Baltimore Club, beating them by a score of 16 to 8, and earning one-half of their runs, while the visitors earned but one-tally.  The Baltimore nine was weakened by the absence of Fusselbach, who was unwell, and Seery was sent behing the bat to support W. Sweeney, O'Brien taking left, J. Sweeny center, and Henry Oberbeck, of this city, right.  The local battery were Werden and Brennan, Dickerson covering third base, Quinn left field, and the others in their usual position.  The game was loosely played, eleven errors being charged to each side.  These, however, included two wild pitches each by Werden and Sweeny, the Union Association rules requiring that they be scored in the error column.  The visitors made but seven hits...Nineteen hits and a total of twenty-seven bases were made by the local sluggers.  Rowe and Shafer scored three-baggers, and Rowe, Brennan, Whitehead and Werden two-baggers.  Out of six times at the bat, Brennan secured five hits.  Shafer ranked next with four hits...Dunlap made two great one-handed stops of high throws by Brennan.  Over 8,000 persons were present, the grand stand crowd being very large, and including many prominent citizens.

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


I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed in the Maroons' attendance.  They had a nice crowd for this Sunday game but, generally, they weren't drawing all that well.  They were doing okay but I expected them to draw much better than this.  While I haven't looked all that close at the numbers, I'm pretty sure that the Browns were drawing bigger crowds.  I didn't expect that.

Speaking of disappointing:  What Did Dunlap Do?  Nothing.  But he didn't make an error and made a couple of nice plays on wild throws by Brennan.  So there's that.

The Worst First Baseman Ever

The Murphy and Somerville nines, both of the St. Louis News Company, had a game on their own grounds near Cote Brilliante yesterday afternoon.  The Somervilles won by a score of 113 to 8.  Carroll and Denning and Johnson and Scherer were the batteries.  A feature of the game was the brilliant playing of John Jennings, "Magoogin," at first base.  He failed to stop a single ball. 

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


Okay, I'm guessing he didn't play the entire game at first base.  There's no way they would keep him there if he couldn't handle a single ball.  But I'm guessing his play had something to do with Somerville scoring 113 runs.

Deasley's Punishment

Tom Deasley, catcher for the St. Louis Base Ball Team, stood trial in the Police Court this morning upon the charge of assaulting Miss Anna Kerr, while on a tear Tuesday night.  He had previously been fined $10 and costs for drunkenness, and the evidence in the case led the Mayor to impose an additional penalty of $10 and costs for the assault.  Deasley will have cause to remember his visit to Indianapolis. 

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

The 1884 Maroons: Ridiculous

The second game between the St. Louis and Baltimore Union Association teams was played yesterday afternoon in the presence of about 2,000 persons.  As an exhibition of terrific hitting on the part of the home team it was a great success, but as a contest it was too one-sided to be in any degree exciting.  With Gleason on the hospital list the local nine pounded the first pitcher that opposed them out of his position in the third inning, and in the rest of the game hammered Robinson until their aggregate of singles amounted to 27, and their total bases to 38.  Dunlap, Shafer, Quinn and Whitehead each made four hits, Dunlap, Dickerson, Rowe and Baker each made one double, Shafer and Taylor each made two, and Shafer scored one three-bagger.  Ten runs were earned, and by energetic base-running every error of the visitors was made so costly that the total was swelled to 20.  The visitors made nine hits, Robinson scoring a two-bagger and Levis a three-bagger.  

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


Cutting straight to the chase:  What Did Dunlap Do?  Fred just went four for six with a double.  I think it was his best day at the plate since he went five for five on May 1st against Altoona.  For the season, if my math is correct, Dunlap was 29 for 58, good for an even .500 batting average.  The amazing thing is that I couldn't say for sure that he was leading the team in hitting.  Bollicky Bill Taylor was hitting the snot out of the ball and was probably the best hitter on the team through their first fifteen games.  He was certainly hitting for more power than Dunlap.

But the whole team was just crushing UA pitching.  This was the ninth time in fifteen games that the Maroons scored in double figures and the second time that they scored at least twenty runs.  Their run differential at this point in the season was +131.  That's ridiculous.  They were 16-0 and winning by an average of eight runs a game.

I should point out that Dunlap also had two errors in this game and that the team had ten total errors.  If there was a weakness in this Maroons club, comparing them to other UA clubs, it was their defense.  The Globe certainly believed that Washington and Baltimore were both better defensively than the Maroons.  Looking at the first couple of weeks of the season, I'm certainly not impressed with their glove-work.              

Happy Thanksgiving

The 1884 Maroons: Exclamations Of Disapprobation

The St. Louis Unions won another victory yesterday, the Baltimore Unions contributing the trophy.  Heavy batting decided the contest, the visitors outplaying the home nine in the field, but being unable to offset their terrific work with the willow.  The day was a lovely one and the attendance was about 2,500, the capacious grand stand containing a good part of the gathering.  The Baltimore battery were J. Sweeny and Fusselbach, and, notwithstanding that Sweeny was hit for fourteen bases, their work commanded the admiration of the spectators.  For the local nine Hodnett pitched up to the close of the ninth inning, with Brennan as his support.  In eight innings only four hits were scored off Hodnett's delivery, but, when in the ninth inning, Robinson and J. Sweeny, the first two Baltimores at the bat, both made two-baggers, Capt. Dunlap immediately substituted Taylor, Rowe coming in to cover first and Hodnett taking center field.  The crowd, which appeared to desire the defeat of the St. Louis nine, did not take kindly to the change, and it was greeted with exclamations of disapprobation and hisses. 

Taking No Chances. 

Dunlap was quite surprised at its reception but said he did not care, as he believed he did right in protecting his club's chances for the game.  Hodnett, he said, had pitched splendidly, but it was possible the Baltimore batsmen might have become accustomed to his delivery, and a change at that stage was the safest thing to do.  When the first batsman that faced Taylor made a safe hit the crowd cheered frantically.  Brennan was off in his throwing to second, and three times sent the ball wild to Dunlap.  He also misjudged a foul fly, but it was an excusable error, the sun being in his eyes.  Whitehead and Hodnett likewise misjudged fly balls from the same causes.  The features of the game were brilliant catches by O'Brien and Shafer and a grand one-handed stop of a liner by Robinson.  O'Brien's catch was the best seen in St. Louis this season.  In the seventh inning Rowe raised a long high one out to center.  O'Brien turned and ran with the ball, and while running at full speed, to the astonishment of all beholders, succeeded in capturing it.  Many of the spectators did not know that he had secured the ball until he turned and threw it to Phelan, whose assist to Lewis doubled up Gleason.  Shafer, with his back toward the diamond, nipped a liner that O'Brien sent out to right, Gleason led at the bat, scoring three hits, one of them a two-bagger.  On the latter he, unfortunately stopped short at second, turning his right ankle so that it swelled up alarmingly, and bids fair to keep him off the field for some time.  Taylor made a three-bagger, and Fusselbach, Robinson and J. Sweeny, of the visitors, two-baggers.  Umpire Sullivan, who has a voice that suits a crowd, gave good satisfaction.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 15, 1884


The Maroons were 14-0 after this game but this was really the first game where the decision was in doubt.  Their seven runs was tied for the fewest runs they had scored in a game so far in the season and the five they gave up was the second most they had surrendered as of yet.  It was a 3-2 game going into the fifth and a 5-3 game after seven.  The Maroons scored two in the eighth but Baltimore answered back with two of their own in the ninth.  The game was tight enough for Dunlap to make a pitching change, the club's first of the season, after Baltimore opened the ninth with two doubles.  St. Louis won by two but it appears that the home crowd was cheering for the visitors by the end of the game.  It seems likely that the Maroons' fans were getting a bit tired of watching their club beat up on inferior opposition and was looking for someone to give them a game.  When Baltimore did just that, the fans cheered them on.

As to Captain Hook, What Did Dunlap Do?  Besides riling up the home crowd by making a pitching change, Dunlap went his usual two for five.  He was a machine.    

Professionals

In The Background of Professional Baseball in St. Louis, published in the Missouri Historical Society Bulletin of October 1850, Anthony Lampe makes a significant claim.  He writes that "The year 1868 held promise of being a great season.  Certain important changes had taken place since 1867.  The Union Ball Players now had no occupation other than playing baseball, though they were still not referred to as professionals."  While Lampe does not cite his source for this claim, it most likely came from the Missouri Republican, whose contemporary accounts of St. Louis baseball activity in the 1860s represent his primary source for the article.

I've claimed for sometime that St. Louis baseball players were being payed by the late 1860s.  This stands in contrast to most descriptions of the St. Louis pioneer era, which described the city as a bastion of pure amateurism.  My claim was, up to this point, entirely based on circumstantial evidence with little contemporary source material to support it.

The most important fact that led me to conclude that St. Louis players were being paid in the late 1860s was the establishment of the Union Grounds, the first enclosed ballpark in St. Louis and the first to which admission was charged.  Lampe dates this to the beginning of 1868 while Edmund Tobias, writing in 1895, stated that the new ballpark opened in May of 1867.  Regardless of whether it opened in 1867 or 1868, the fact that the Union Club was charging for admission to their games is sufficient evidence to support the idea that they were paying their players.  The general thinking among 19th century baseball historians is that enclosed ballparks and admission charges were an indication that players were being paid.  Where you find enclosed ballparks and admission charges, you find payers being paid.

There is other evidence that supports the idea that players in St. Louis were getting paid in the late 1860s.  The relationship between the Empire Club and the St. Louis Fire Department implies that Empire Club players were being compensated for their play with jobs.  Some of the player movement in the late 1860s, specifically Tom Oran's movement from the Unions to the Empires and, later, to the Red Stockings, is very suspicious and can be explained if one assumes monetary enticement.  There were also some hints in the national sporting press that implied that the top St. Louis clubs were paying their players.  Add all of this to the fact that the top clubs were charging money to see their teams play and a picture emerges of a culture of paying players that fits with what was happening nationally.

While the weight of evidence supports the idea that pioneer players in St. Louis were being paid, one must point out that when you see claims of St. Louis amateurism during this era, the word "amateur" does not mean what it means today.  Today, an amateur club is one that does not pay their players.  During the pioneer era, however, it implies that the club was not competing for the national baseball championship.  A club that did not pay their players but competed for the national championship was a "professional" club while a club that paid their players but did not compete for the national championship was an "amateur" club.  In that sense, St. Louis baseball clubs were all amateur clubs until 1875, when the Brown Stockings and Red Stockings joined the NA.

Over time this distinction was lost and, I believe, that has confused the issue when it comes to what was happening in St. Louis as far as player compensation is concerned.  The idea that St. Louis clubs were not compensating their players may have arisen from the fact that they were described as amateurs because the clubs were not competing nationally.  Modern historians may have picked up on the word "amateur" and given it a meaning that it did not originally have.  Complicating the issue is the fact that Tobias and Al Spink also made claims that the players were not being compensated prior to 1875.

Regardless of the work of Tobias, Spink and modern historians like William Ryczek and Jon David Cash, the weight of the evidence supports the idea that St. Louis baseball players were being paid by 1867 or 1868.  Lampe, who should be considered a significant figure among baseball historians of the 20th century, believed that to be true and, while he doesn't present the evidence for his assertion, it's significant that he ties baseball professionalism in St. Louis to the opening of the Union Grounds.  It's entirely possible that I find this significant because it appears that Lampe supports my thinking but it can't be denied that he is the first source that I've discovered that explicitly stated that St. Louis players were being paid during the pioneer era.

In the end, we don't need Lampe to establish the idea that the pioneer players in St. Louis were being paid.  I believe that the weight of the evidence, while circumstantial, is strong enough to support this on its own.  But Lampe is a very creditable historian and his piece in the October 1850 Bulletin is a significant, if largely forgotten, historical work.  I'd like to run down his sources and find that contemporary source that led him to make his claim but I don't believe it's absolutely necessary.  Lampe's claim can be added to the rest of the evidence and only strengthens the idea that St. Louis baseball players were being paid in the late 1860s.

Note:  I've doing a bit of research on Lampe and I've discovered that he was an expert on the 19th century St. Louis Fire Department, dating back to the antebellum era.  I've pointed out that there was a relationship between the Empire Club and the StLFD that implies that the players were being compensated and, given Lampe's interest in both St. Louis pioneer-era baseball and the 19th century StLFD, I find it hard to believe that he wasn't aware of this connection.  To me, this lends a great deal of credence to Lampe's claim.  I have a feeling that the man saw the same evidence that I saw and came to the same conclusion.    

The Empire-Union Series Of 1867, Part Three

Fans of the Union Club celebrate the team's victory over the Empires.
No.  Wait.  That can't be right.  Let's try this again...

Never mind.  

Continuing our excerpts from Anthony Lampe's The Background Of Professional Baseball In St. Louis, published in the Missouri Historical Society Bulletin, October 1950:

The second game of the championship series between the Union and Empire Clubs was played on July tenth.  The Union Club again won, this time by the narrow margin of thirty-four to thirty-two, thus taking the championship from the Empires, who had held it for six years.  The newly crowned champions celebrated their victory with an evening of merrymaking, reported in the Missouri Republican [July 11, 1867] as follows: 

The great victory...naturally enough caused no small elation and enthusiasm among the members of the organization.  Their joy, however, was not manifested in any unseemly or intemperate manner toward their conquered foes, but in an inoffensive, harmless way.  In one respect it assumed a most agreeable development.   

Between eleven and twelve o'clock last night a large party of the victorious knights assembled in front of the REPUBLICAN office, having a fine band of music in attendance, and we were soon apprised of their presence by the sweet strains of music floating up through the still air of night in most agreeable melody... 

The party were in exuberant spirits, and full of fun and frolic, and somewhat inclined to be a little boisterous, which however, under the circumstances, might be expected.  As the party dispersed three cheers were given for the REPUBLICAN office, and then, with generous spirit, for the Empire Club.

The Union Base Ball Club March was published to celebrate the Unions' great victory.  The cover of the sheet music, pictured above, is the only known contemporary picture of the Union Club nine.

The Empire-Union Series Of 1867, Part Two

Again, this comes from Anthony Lampe's The Background Of Professional Baseball In St. Louis, published in the Missouri Historical Society Bulletin, October 1850:

Everybody in St. Louis was in favor of the game except "Old Man Weather," and he proved to be an efficient stumbling block.  A shower in the early innings caused the game to be postponed until July first.  Spectator interest was not dampened, however, and a large crowd was on hand when game time arrived on July 1, 1867.  A newspaper account [from The Missouri Republican, July 2, 1867] described the event, with particular attention to the ladies: 

Baseball is now generally conceded to be our national game, although it is of comparatively recent origin.  From the infant of a few years ago it has risen to the proportions of a giant, and strides through the country gathering new followers at every point.  That which in the earlier days of most of us was deemed a childish pastime has become a game that requires skill, manliness and strength.A few gentlemen, whom we need not particularize, have within the last two or three years devoted almost their entire time and energies to the advancement of the baseball game in St. Louis, and their success has been most cheering.  Numerous clubs have sprung up here, some of which might not hesitate to throw down the gauntlet to any in the Northwest. 

A few weeks ago a challenge was given by the Union and accepted by the Empire Club to meet in a friendly contest for the championship--the game to be best two in three.  A meeting occurred last week as our readers will remember on the grounds of the old Veto Club, but was interrupted by the rain, and many visitors present were deprived of witnessing the anticipated match.  Yesterday the elements were more propitious, and the first trial was completed, resulting in an overwhelming victory for the Union Club, which, in nine innings scored 49, while the Empire scored but 29.  The almost insufferable state of the weather, and the unfortunate health in which two or three players were said to be, doubtless caused the game to be played with less brilliance than it would otherwise have been.  Still, however, there were some very fine exhibitions of skill on both sides, as the scores will show.  There was some splendid batting by both nines, particularly the Union; while the members of the Empire seemed to be more expert in fielding.  A number of plays were made by the members of either club which have rarely been surpassed. 

Apparently about two thousand spectators were on the ground, including quite a large number of ladies.  For the most part order prevailed.  Young America, as is usual on such occasions, manifested his displeasure at intervals, by hoots and groans when something transpired that did not exactly meet his imperial favor.  It is to be regretted, that it is not within the bounds of possibility, to repress these disagreeable demonstrations in the midst of outdoor sports.  We learn that large sums of money changed hands among the spectators on the issue of this contest...

The Empire-Union Series Of 1867, Part One

The following comes from Anthony Lampe's The Background Of Professional Baseball In St. Louis, published in the Missouri Historical Society Bulletin of October 1950:

In 1867 the city championship took on a new aspect when the Empire Club, city champions for the past six years, were challenged early in June by the Union Club.  Early in the season the newspapers began preparing the public for the coming matches.  On June 14, 1867, the following article appeared [in The Missouri Republican]:

The Union Club having challenged the Empire to a home and home match for the St. Louis Championship, the first of the games will be played Wednesday, the 26th inst., 2 P.M., on the Veto grounds, near the machine shop of the Pacific R.R. Co.  The Empire Club has successfully defended the championship for the past six years, the Union being the only St. Louis Club that has gained a victory over them in that time; the latter having won one in a series of thee games played between these rival clubs.  As both nines are in active training and confident of victory, a close and exciting contest may be expected.

Lampe goes on to write that "By June twenty-sixth the people of St. Louis were referring to the game as the championship not only of St. Louis but of Missouri."  He quotes The Missouri Republican of June 22, 1867:

The grand match of baseball for the championship of Missouri will be played to-day on the old Veto grounds, north of the Pacific Railroad Machine Shop.  The match is to commence this afternoon at two o'clock, between the Union and Empire Clubs, the latter having won the distinguished honor of being the championship club of the Northwest.  The contest will doubtless call out a crowd of spectators, including the ladies.

The most interesting thing of note here is that we now have a contemporary source that backs up the idea that the Empires were the St. Louis champions from 1861-1866.  The Tobias source notes that they were champions in 1865 and 1866 and implies that they were the champions through the war years but there was never any hard evidence to support that.  I really didn't have any doubts about it but, in the end, it was just an educated guess.  Now, thanks to Lampe, we have the Republican's account from 1867 stating it as a fact.  

The Pleasure Of Your Company

The pleasure of your company is respectfully solicited to attend the Third Anniversary Ball, to be given by the members of the Empire Base Ball Club, at the Turners Hall, on Tuesday Evening, December 16, 1862.

-The Background of Professional Baseball in St. Louis


The October 1950 issue of the Missouri Historical Society Bulletin contains a great article about the early years of baseball in St. Louis, written by Anthony Lampe.  The above quote is taken from the Lampe article and comes from one of the actual invitations to the Empire Club Ball that is in the Missouri Historical Society's collection.  Last summer, when digging through some of the archives at the Missouri Historical Society, I came across that invitation and held it in my hands.  It was a really neat experience.

I've been meaning to post some stuff from Lampe's article for some time now and I guess there's no time like the present.  

 

Tom Deasley Has A Way With The Ladies

Tom Deasley, the catcher of the St. Louis Ball Club, made a very bad break [in Indianapolis] to-day, as a result of which he was arrested and taken to the Station house.  In going towards Bates House he met two ladies, when he accosted, and grasped one by arm; they ran hurriedly away and took refuge in a millinery store, where he followed them.  He was arrested, as stated, for drunkenness and insulting ladies.  Manager Williams put up bail for his appearance in court to-morrow.  

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

Beneath The Dignity Of The Courts

Last Saturday representatives of the St. Louis Athletic Association made an application to the Superior Court of Hamilton County for an injunction forbidding Tony J. Mullane, of the Toledo Club, from playing base ball with the Toledo Club, on the ground of a violation of contract with the plaintiffs.  A temporary restraining order was granted till yesterday, when, upon a hearing, the Superior Court granted an injunction.  The defendants to-day carried the matter before Judge Baxter, of the United States Circuit Court, on a motion to dissolve the injunction.  The injunctions have been taken out by the St. Louis Club in the State Courts at St. Louis and Cincinnati.  The motion to dissolve the injunction against him here was taken before Judge Baxter, on the ground that the petition of the St. Louis Club failed to state facts sufficient to entitle the complainant to the relief prayed for.  Judge Baxter heard the arguments of counsel in his private office.  He said that he would dissolve the injunction, would give Mullane leave to withdraw from the contract between him and the St. Louis Club, and ordered that this be made a part of the record in the case.  Judge Baxter daid he would further give him leave to answer hereafter.  In announcing his decision the Judge said he did not think the time of the courts could be occupied by baseball matters.  Ball-playing was nothing which benefited the public in any way.  It was not a business of any kind, but it was merely a sport, which was beneath the dignity of the courts to notice.

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


While I'm not an expert on the subject, I have to imagine that the unique position that Major League Baseball occupies as a legal entity is a result of the attitude expressed by Judge Baxter in 1884.  It was sport, rather than business, and it was not a public-benefit.  That sort of reasoning, I believe, underpins all of the major legal decisions that involved baseball in the 20th century.  

The 1884 Maroons: Pounding The Ball All Over The Field

The St. Louis Unions won another victory from the Nationals, of Washington, yesterday, in a contest terminated by rain at the end of five innings.  The visitors played a poor fielding game, but at the bat they made a better showing.  The home team, as usual started in pounding the ball all over the field, and took all the vim out of their opponents.  In the first inning a three-base hit by Gleason and a single by Rowe, sided by errors of the Nationals scored three runs.  In the second hits by Rowe, Dunlap and Taylor assisted by wild throws added four more to the score.  In the third singles by Dunlap, Baker and Brennan, and wretched fielding by the opposing nine gave them three more.  A fine drive for three bases to the right field fence by Rowe, followed by Taylor's long hit to the left field fence, added another in the fourth, making a total of eleven.  The visitors scored two in the third, three in the fourth, and one in the fifth by hits of Wise, Evers, Moore, and McLaughlin.  Taylor pitched a fine game while Baker supported in fine style.  For the visitors Lockwood pitched, McKenna being his support.  There were about 1,500 people in attendance.

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


Thirteen straight wins.  And the team was just battering that left-field fence.

What Did Dunlap Do?  The T-800 was two for three with a couple of runs scored.  Like a machine.

It should also be noted that while the Maroons drew 1,500 fans to their game, the Browns drew what the Globe described as the biggest baseball crowd of the season to their game against Columbus.  The crowd at Sportsman's Park was estimated at around 12,000.  It looks like, at that point in the season, Von der Ahe and the Browns were winning their fight against the upstart Maroons.  It remains to be seen how the Maroons would draw the rest of the season but to get only 1,500 on a Sunday in St. Louis was pretty weak.    

The 1884 Maroons: The Nationals Put On A Show In the Field, Lose By Four

The Nationals, of Washington, played a beautiful fielding game yesterday, and but for the terrific batting of the St. Louis boys they would have easily won the ball.  The fourteen clean hits for twenty bases does not really represent the batting of the home team.  Three times Gleason drove the ball to the far outfield and three times splendid catches were scored on his hits.  In one inning Dickerson reached first on a clean hit and then Gleason drove the ball to far center.  Wise ran out, caught the ball in one hand and then threw to Baker in time to double up Dickerson at first.  Taylor clipped one to far center, and Wise gathered it in and then threw on the line in to Voss.  The latter threw to McKenna to head Rowe at the plate.  Rowe reached the plate with the ball and knocked it out of McKenna's hands.  Thus another double play was scored.  In the last inning Baker took a foul tip hot from the bat and doubled up a man at first.  Besides these Voss, Baker and Lockwood scored another double play, making the fourth in the game.  These performances illustrate their splendid fielding.  But the batting of the home team would have won against any odds.  Once Dunlap hit the ball fairly at Voss, and the latter had just time to put up his hands and save himself.  As it was the ball nearly knocked him down.  For the home team the playing was done by Dickersona and Dunlap.  The former made four running catches, and his quick fielding in of long hits along the left line prevented the visitors from scoring double instead of single hits.  Hodnett pitched a fine game, and Sullivan caught in his old time style.  Whitehead, at short, played neatly and gracefully, and gives promise of making one of the best of short fielders.  Dan Devinney umpired satisfactorily.  

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 11, 1884


That really does sound like some nice fielding by the Nationals.  But they still lost by four.  All of their great work in the field merely saved them from losing by seven or more.

The Maroons were 12-0 and still looking for a team that could challenge them.

What Did Dunlap Do?  Yawn.  Just another two for five with a run scored.  The man was like a machine.  Two for five, two for five, two for five.  I compared him earlier to a barbarian horde overwhelming his opponents but he seems to be more like the Terminator: a cold-blooded, never-stopping two for five machine.  And now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that the design for the T-800 was based on the King of Second Basemen.

Fred Dunlap

 

We Stole A Couple Of Players From Buffalo Bill

Genins and Hutchinson, who arrived with the "Wild West," were engaged for the Papins, and will settle down to a civilized life on the ball field.

-St. Louis Globe-Democrat, May 11, 1884


I can't explain why I'm so interested in the idea of the Wild West Show playing in St. Louis but it fascinates me.  And I love the idea of a couple of guys from the show quitting to play baseball.  If we could figure out who Genins and Hutchinson were, it would make for a nice, little article.

Mullane Enjoined In Cincinnati

President Lucas, of the Union Club, received a telegram last night from his attorney, Newton Crane, who had followed Mullane to Cincinnati, announcing an order enjoining that pitcher from playing with any club but the Union club of this city had been issued by one of the Cincinnati courts.

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

The 1884 Maroons: The Terrific Batting Of The Home Club

The second game between the St. Louis Unions and the Nationals, of Washington,attracted a small attendance.  As in the opening game, the terrific batting of the home club overwhelmed the visitors, who were defeated by a score of 12 to 4.  Wise and Phil Baker were the Nationals' opening battery.  In the seventh inning Voss took Wise's place, but the change had little effect.  A total of 16 base hits shows the manner in which they were pounded.  The feature of the game was a home run by Taylor, who raised the ball ten feet over the screen.

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


After this win, the Maroons were 11-0, hadn't scored less than seven runs in a game and hadn't won a game by less than five runs.  As I wrote before, the UA clubs weren't putting up much of a fight against them.

An interesting point about the attendance.  The Globe notes that they drew a small crowd and the Browns played a game the same day, drawing a reported 5,000 people.  I'm wondering how quickly the folks in St. Louis caught on to the lack of competitive balance in the UA and if that would effect the attendance.  It's something to keep an eye on.

And we had another home run over the fence in left field, again supporting the idea that Union Park was a bit of a bandbox.

But, more importantly, What Did Dunlap Do?  Just his normal two for five with a double.  While he didn't score any runs, he did turn two double plays.