Clipping:Proposals to counter reduced offense: four strikes, high-low strike zones, move the pitcher
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Wednesday, August 22, 1888 |
|---|---|
| Text | [editorial:] And still the batting gets weaker and weaker, and tiresome extra-inning games are the order of the day—a result predicted last winter by The Sporting Life, after the alterations in the pitching and batting rules. Undoubtedly a change will have to be made, but just what sort of a change is the question,a st he rule makers seem unwilling to return to the four-strike rule. That would be a confession of blunder. John M. Ward comes to the front with a suggestion. Says he: “The pitcher has the advantage. Last year, under the four-strike rule, things went well enough, but they had to make a change, though what for nobody knows. They ought to put the pitcher five feet further back. Why, under the underhand delivery the distance was forty-five feet, and it is now but five feet farther back under the much swifter throw. If the distance were fifty-five feet, you would find that it would be no harder upon the pitchers, while the batsmen would greatly improve in their work. They would have more time to prepare for and gauge the ball. The batsman does not have time to meet the ball at present. It is on him before he knows it. Such a rule would help the game amazingly.” Captain Hanlon, of the Detroits, in common with the majority of the players, also isn't satisfied with the batting, and says: “I would like to see a return to the high and low ball. Then the pitcher would have to deliver the ball where you wanted it, and you would have some idea where it was coming. The umpiring would not be any harder than it is now on the batsman when strikes are called on balls that pass at the level of your hair or ankles. The batting would then be improved, and that the people want.” The possible changes are narrowed down to three, namely, returning to the high and low ball, four strikes, or putting the pitcher further back. The first named change would not be advisable as the restoration of the high and low ball would only revive the old troubles and add to the burdens of the umpires who already have their hands only too full, and for whose benefit mainly the distinction was done away with. A return to the four-strike rule is apparently out of the question for the reason given above. The most feasible solution of the trouble then that presents itself is Mr. Ward's suggestion, however, however, is not original with him, [illegible] Manager Wright [illegible]. It is unlikely that any change will be made now, nor would it be desirable, the season being on the wane, but the subject should be given very careful consideration from now on, so that when the time comes for amendment of the rules a change may be made, in accordance with popular demand, that may stand the test of at least one season without tinkering. More batting is certainly needed. Under the four-strike rule there was perhaps a trifle too much; under existing rules there isn't enough on the average to prevent games from becoming slow and tedious alike to players and spectators. A happy medium is needed, and to the discovery of that rule makers should bend their energies. The Sporting Life August 22, 1888 Tom Loftus says: “We want more batting. I don’t care much how it comes, but think the 55 feet amendment would help it.” Comiskey favors the 55 feet rule, which he says will make the bunter more effective and give the batter more of a chance. Close plays on bunted balls near the plate are almost universal now. With an extra five feet such balls would be safe. Comiskey also says that it will aid the base running a little, but at the same time a good fielding pitcher will be able to get enough balls that now pass him safely to make up for the bunt advantage gained by the batter. Any increase of batting under the 55 feet change will, Comiskey, thinks, be temporary. “We want a permanently effective rule,” he says. Umpire Gaffeny has a new idea on the subject. He advocates the adoption of a ball on third livelier than that in use. Such a ball would go out faster and harder and less fine stops would be made in the infield and more would get away from the outfielders. “I think,” say Mr. Gaffney, “that the one third livelier ball would increase the batting a good deal. If it didn’t increase it enough reduce the size of the plate. At present it measures seventeen and one half inches from corner to corner. Make it twelve inches across and the ball will be brought more within the reach of the batter. ... Mickey Welch wants the high and low ball restored. So does Buck Ewing. Pitcher Sanders of the Phillies wants the four strike rule again and Seward, Casey and Weyhing think they would like to try the 55 feet rule. Cleveland Plain Dealer August 31, 1888 |
| 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" />