Clipping:A defense of the hit on a base on ball; earned runs
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, November 23, 1887 |
|---|---|
| Text | [from Frank Brunell’s column] The base-hit-on-balls filled a void and did the game good. It imposed the highest penalty on the base on ball–a kind of prohibitory tax. That was the base hit. It couldn’t be worse, under the rules, than a hit, and it taught the youngsters to put ‘em over the plate. ... An error carries but half the terror of a base hit, and frequent as were bases on balls this past season they will be more so next season. The telegraph gravely informs us that, at Mr. N. E. Young’s suggestion, a base on balls is still to be accounted as a factor in an earned run. Ye gods! An earned run can thus be made on four actual and nominal errors. It was bad enough when made on an actual error, dubbed a hit, but now–. It is too much. The world’s wisdom must be in other than base ball nests. The Sporting Life November 23, 1887 [from editorial content] ...the committee did not stop at retrogression, but went even to the ridiculous in declaring that bases on balls, which are to be set down as errors, shall also figure in earned run statistics. The Sporting Life November 23, 1887 the missing Boston Club shares The minority shareholders of the Boston Club filed a bill in equity November 12, asking for an account of money received and for a reversal of the action of the directors in regard to the forfeiture and sale of seventy-two shares of stock. The defendants–Soden, Conant and Billings–control sixty-five of the seventy-eight shares of stock now in existence. President Soden says in relation to this suit:–“This whole matter relating to the forfeiture of the seventy-two shares of stock was transacted before I or my associates, Messrs. Conant and Billings, became connected with the club. At the time I was elected president, a question arose as to how those seventy-two shares should be allowed to vote. It seems that they had only been partially paid for, although the certificates had been issued. Finally the matter was referred to the Hon. Walbridge A. Field, now one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and he went over the ground thoroughly, and finally gave his decision declaring that the seventy-two shares of stock had no legal standing whatever; that the treasurer had no right to issue them until they were all paid for in full, and, having been illegally issued, they had no standing. But I suppose the principal basis for this proceeding in court lies in the desire of the minor stockholders to gain an insight into the financial books of the corporation. We may be compelled to show the books, but until we are we certainly shall not do so.” The Sporting Life November 23, 1887 [See also TSL 5/3/1890 p. 6.] |
| Source | Sporting Life |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />