New Forum: 19th Century Baseball

[Brian McKenna]

i was wondering if anyone would be interested in a new forum that focuses on baseball before 1900?

[runningshoes]

Anything that will help increase my knowledge of the game is welcome.

[webmaster]

I would be curious as why that would be a better place / different place than making a post in the Baseball History forum which is designed to handle items considered to be not-current?

Sean

[runningshoes]

I would be curious as why that would be a better place / different place than making a post in the Baseball History forum which is designed to handle items considered to be not-current?

Sean

It would be more focused to that era as opposed to searching up and down the thread for 19th century baseball. If you go to that thread, you know that's what you're going to find.

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

I would be in favor of it, because 19th century baseball is a subject I often find myself reading up on. It is very interesting to me and I think it would be great. But also, I have to agree with sean that the baseball history forum is a good place to post about the pre-modern era.

So whatever the deciscion is, I will be in favor of it.

[Brian McKenna]

i suggested it just because such a high percentage of baseball fans and really historians focus on baseball after 1900. it was my thought that 19th century topics would be at the forefront and not be pushed aside from all the best/worst and other discussions which are 95+% focused on the modern era.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Considering some of the recent forums created, like Women's Baseball and the Seattle Pilots, which don't generate talk, a 19th Century History forum may not be a bad idea. It would be akin to the Teams of yesteryear forums or the Negro League forums as a unique part of baseball history. While the game is still essentially played as it was in the 19th century, levels of competition, mound distance, etc. also make it distinctly different.

[Buzzaldrin]

I think it's a great idea. Would simplify things a bunch for me, at least. The last discussion I had on these forums had to do with the 1860's and was spread out over two forums and private messages- would've been more convenient to have it in one place.

[ElCaminoSS]

Thats a great idea BUT I think thats what they made History of the Game for

[Cubsfan97]

HOLY CARP! I was gonna make this same exact thread but I thought I would have no supporters so I didn't bother. Yay bkmckenna for making this. I would love for there to be a 19th century thread. It would deffinently attract more that the AAGPBL and some other teams. I hope this goes through. BTW it would fall under history but in the time I've been here (about 3.5 months) the only 19th century baseball threads I saw in there were the ones I made.

[ElCaminoSS]

BTW it would fall under history but in the time I've been here (about 3.5 months) the only 19th century baseball threads I saw in there were the ones I made.
Maybe thats why theres no 19th century baseball thread

[Brian McKenna]

Maybe thats why theres no 19th century baseball thread

my apologies then - but wouldn't this entire bbf forum fall under the "history of the game" category

but you're right to the entent that baseball fans focus 80+% of their discussion to current issues and anything related to the hall of famers and all these silly lists which offer little intellectual appeal

another thought here was the length that bbf went to to highlight the significant fields of study that obviously stray from the mainstream as noted above - female ball, negro leagues, international ball, minor leagues, etc. -- i merely thought 19th century bb fit in with that concept

[ElCaminoSS]

Well those forums are forums because they are different and didnt fit into other forums. While 19th century baseball would not get many posts (probably less than the pathetic amount on Womens Baseball) and if you ask any moderators they would probably tell you that thats what history of the game is for.

[Buzzaldrin]

19th c ball would get a heck of a lot more posts than some of you guys seems to think. It's a great idea and I fail to see how it would be a problem for anybody.

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

maybe it can be made as a sub-forum, which is only accessable through the History of the Game forum.

Ive seen it on several different VBulletin forums.

[ElCaminoSS]

Thats a really good idea

[brewcrew82]

maybe it can be made as a sub-forum, which is only accessable through the History of the Game forum.

Ive seen it on several different VBulletin forums.

I was thinking the same thing...

[TonyK]

I would be interested in seeing it have it's own place. I don't like posting a topic and only seeing one response and few readers. As long as it doesn't evolve into a Best/Worst debate as someone else mentioned too.

[westsidegrounds]

well, as of right now:

bkmckenna's post dated Wednesday re Cartwright, Chadwick etc has 24 responses and 299 readers
bkmckenna's post dated Friday on the BB effect of the panic of 1893 has 12 responses and 116 readers
Sashag's post of today re the NY Knickerbockers of the 1850s has had 5 responses and 33 readers

That's just looking at page 1 of the History forum.

I'm not seeing any lack of interest in, or response to, 19C topics there.

[webmaster]

I am certainly open to giving it a try. The worst possible scenario is it does not get much attention and I have to move threads into the History Forum which is not a problem at all.

Enjoy and I too look forward to learning more about 19th Century Baseball myself.

Sean

[westsidegrounds]

I am certainly open to giving it a try. The worst possible scenario is it does not get much attention and I have to move threads into the History Forum which is not a problem at all.

Enjoy and I too look forward to learning more about 19th Century Baseball myself.

Sean

Good going.

You've just ensured that 19C baseball - a topic on which I have posted several times - will be isolated from Baseball History as such.

Previously, posters who were already interested in this subject could find it effortlessly in the History section. And those with only a casual interest in that specific area could find mention of it in that forum, and perhaps become more interested and knowledgable.

Well, we can kiss that goodbye.

You sure like chopping stuff up into niche categories, doncha?

[Gotham]

Good going.

You've just ensured that 19C baseball - a topic on which I have posted several times - will be isolated from Baseball History as such.

Previously, posters who were already interested in this subject could find it effortlessly in the History section. And those with only a casual interest in that specific area could find mention of it in that forum, and perhaps become more interested and knowledgable.

Well, we can kiss that goodbye.

You sure like chopping stuff up into niche categories, doncha?


I don't understand the anger and your argument makes no sense. What could be easier to find than a separate category? THAT'S effortless.

[ElCaminoSS]

Hey Westsidegrounds is basically right, I've said since the beginning of the thread I thought this forum was pointless. I'm not what anybody would call a Veteran here but wasn't that was history of the game is for? And isn't this just making everything harder to get to? I thought that this site was divided up pretty much perfect so that there wasn't any forums that shouldn't be there.

[Gotham]

Somebody please explain to me how this is harder, I don't understand. If you want 19th century baseball, you click once and you are there. That's hard?

[ElCaminoSS]

Ok then lets rename History of the game to 20th Century baseball since thats what it basically is now.

[digglahhh]

Gotham,

What the others are saying is that by seperating 19th Century baseball from the general History of the Game Forum, there will be no more talk of 19th Century ball in the other forum. This in turn could very well lead to the 19th C. thread becoming an esoteric forum limited to the contributions of only a few members.

By removing it from the H.O.G. forum you are restricting the potential to spread the knowledge to others and generate interest in those who previously did not have any in the subject.

I for one, am not very interested in 19th C ball. However, throughout my normal survey of the H.O.G. forum I was able to learn a bit here and there, even when I didn't intend to. Now I have to come here, meaning adding a stop on my normal route through the site. I probably won't do that very often and therefore probably won't pick up any tidbits through incidental browsing, like I did before.

I believe the dissenters are claiming that this change will damage the overall interest in the topic in the long run.

[Gotham]

That is a very well explained and thoughtful response. I think I understand that point of view, thanks Digglahhh.

[PLowry]

This is an excellent thread. In my experience, there is a HUGE amount of baseball history yet to be unearthed by dedicated baseball researchers on baseball from 1800 to 1899.

Here is one contribution I can offer. This is a list of all baseball games discovered SO FAR lasting 20 or more innings. It is a very short list, only seven (7) games for the normal current modern rules, and seventeen (17) games played under the former Massachusetts Rules.

Obviously, I am missing many such games. And it is possible that I may have some games recorded under the wrong set of rules. If any of you come across a game omitted from this list, or an error, please let me know and share it on this thread. Thank you very much.

Phil Lowry

CURRENT MODERN RULES - 19TH CENTURY GAMES LASTING 20 OR MORE INNINGS

24 innings – South End Grounds (I), Boston, MA – 5/11/1877 – International Association at Inter-Collegiate Association – Manchester Professionals 0 Harvard College Crimson 0 in 3:30.

21 innings – Girard Field, Philadelphia, PA - 6/29/1878 – Amateur at High School – Yeager 10 Girard College High School Orphans (later Cavaliers) 7 in 4:00.

22 innings – 11th Street Grounds, Tacoma, WA – 5/16/1891 – Pacific Northwest League – Tacoma Daisies 6 Seattle Blues 5 in 3:35 – 900 fans – finished at 7:05 PM.

25 innings – North Dakota State Militia Training Grounds, Devils Lake, ND – 7/18/1891 – Red River Valley League – Grand Forks Black Stockings 0 Fargo Red Stockings 0 in 4:10 – finished at 8:10 PM.

20 innings – League Park (I), Cincinnati, OH – 6/30/1892 – National League – Colts (later Cubs) 7 Reds 7 in 3:20 – 1300 fans.

20 innings – Sportsman’s Park (III), St. Louis, MO – 4/10/1898 – Western League at National League spring training exhibition – St. Louis Browns 12 Milwaukee Brewers 11 in 3:20.

21 innings – Lake View Park, Peoria, IL - 6/26/1898 – Western Association – Peoria Blackbirds 8 St. Joseph Saints 4 in 4:00.

MASSACHUSETTS RULES - 19TH CENTURY GAMES LASTING 20 OR MORE INNINGS

33 innings – Boston Common Parade Ground, Boston, MA – 5/31/1858 – Holliston Winthrops 100 Boston Olympics 27 in 3:28 – there was only one out for each team in an inning – 2500 fans – finished at 5:30 PM.

64 innings – Foxboro, MA – 6/19/1858 – South Walpole Rough and Ready’s 99 Foxboro 99 in 6:00.

52 innings – Boston Common, Boston, MA – 10/15/1858 – Boston Bay States 77 Charlestown Bunker Hills 56.

42 innings – Boston Common, Boston, MA – 10/23/1858 – Boston Olympics 54 Waltham Mechanics 21 in 3:00.

33 innings – City Common, New Bedford, MA – 11/25/1858 – Union Club of New Bedford 103 Bristol County Club of New Bedford 18 in 2:15 – 1000 fans - finished at 12:15 PM.

21 innings – Petaluma, CA – 5/17/1859 – C.I. Robinson’s Eleven Picked Men 21 M. Parker’s Eleven Picked Men 6, then Robinson 8 Parker 6, then Robinson 8 Parker 6 – played for an oyster and champagne dinner.

40 innings – Petaluma, CA – 5/18/1859 – C.I. Robinson’s Four Picked Men 21 M. Parker’s Four Picked Men 18.

57 innings – Boston Common, Boston, MA – 5/21/1859 – Amateur – Natick Yankees 90 Boston Bay States 64 in 5:57.

61 innings – Stone Park, Ashland or Fayville, MA – 6/18/1859 – Ashland Alphas 101 Fayville 50, rain delay.

22 innings – Natick, MA – 6/18/1859 – Natick Yankees 36 Boston Bay States 7 in 1:00, rain delay top 23rd. UNKNOWN BALLFIELD

26 innings – Young Ladies Institute Town Lot, Pittsfield, MA – 7/1/1859 – Inter-Collegiate Association - Amherst College Lord Jeffs 73 Williams College Ephs 32 in 3:30 – 150 fans.

105 ½ innings – Stone Park, Ashland, MA – 7/28/1859 and 7/29/1859 – Unions of Medway 100 Excelsiors of Upton 78 in 14:10, dinner delay 0:20, suspended after 10:10 and 85 innings – Medway scored its 100 th run in the top of the 106 th inning and under rules then in effect Upton did not get a chance to even the score in the bottom of the 106 th, so the game lasted 105 ½ innings rather than 106 innings - 8000 fans on 7/28.

80 innings – Agricultural Grounds, Worcester, MA – 10/11/1859 and 10/12/1859 – Excelsiors of Upton 100 Union of Medway 56 in 11:02, suspended after 6:02 - 4500 fans on 10/11.

31 innings – Moseley’s Horse Track Park, Westfield, MA – 7/4/1860 – Inter-Collegiate Association - Amherst College Lord Jeffs 70 Williams College Ephs 40 in 3:40 – finished at 1:00 PM – 65-Run Rule.

30 innings – Janesville, WI – 8/10/1860 – Croft’s Team 50 Hogan’s Team 34 – 50-Tally Rule.

172 innings – Agricultural Grounds, Worcester, MA – 9/25/1860 and 9/26/1860 and 9/27/1860 and 9/28/1860 and 10/1/1860 and 10/4/1860 and 10/5/1860 – Amateur – Excelsiors of Upton 50 Union of Medway 29 in 21:50, dinner and rain delay 0:20 bottom 13th on 9/25, suspended on 9/25 after 2:40 and 12 ½ innings, rain delay 2:30 bottom 13th on 9/26, suspended on 9/26 after 5:40 and 34 ½ innings, lunch delay 0:20 on 9/27, suspended on 9/27 after 12:50 and 83 ½ innings, suspended on 9/28 after 17:20 and 136 ½ innings, scheduled to resume on 10/1 in Springfield, Massachusetts but then decided to resume instead on 10/4 in Worcester, rain delay top 173rd on 10/4, suspended on 10/4 after 21:50 and 172 innings, rain delay top 173rd on 10/5, game called after 21:50 and 172 innings – 4000 fans on 9/26.

36 innings – North End Grounds, Stoneham, MA – 8/28/1880 – Zouaves 21 Benecia Boys 15 – 350 fans.

[PLowry]

Hi. I posted an item twelve days ago on December 8 to see if anyone has knowledge of a game lasting 20 or more innings in the 19th Century missing from my very short list. Has anyone found any yet? Please post if you do.

Phil Lowry
email plowry1176@aol.com