Clipping:A player dishonorably working a base on balls?
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Sunday, May 30, 1869 |
|---|---|
| Text | [Mutual vs. Lowell 5/26/1869] [The umpire] favored the Bostonians remarkably in the way of giving their bases on called balls, they receiving three when they should certainly have had but one, a certain player of their nine evidently refusing to strike, in order to obtain his base in that manner. There is an honorable and honest way of playing ball, and a dishonorable, tricky style. We must say that we prefer the former. New York Sunday Mercury May 30, 1869 [Mutual vs. Lowell 5/26/1869] In the allusion in said paragraph to a certain player of the Lowell Club refusing to strike, in order to secure his base on called balls, our New York contemporary is wrong and unjust. The balls pitched the player referred to (the second baseman of the Lowells) were all shoulder balls, which, when a player wants a knee ball, would be considered by SOME very high knee. They player would not have waited if the pitcher had at that time been pitching even, but being quite the reverse, he was warned by the Captain of the Lowell nine to wait until the pitching suited, and he got a ball where he wanted it. No mention is made when the same player, the very next time at the bat, had a strike called on him–a ball pitched striking the ground was out of reach, and said player retired on three strikes. Our friend of the Mercury has done the said player and the Lowell Club great injustice; for a more honorable and manly player than the one referred to can not be found, if the country were searched through and through. So friend Mercury come out and acknowledge your error. National Chronicle June 5, 1869 |
| Source | New York Sunday Mercury |
| 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" />