1871 Philadelphia Athletics

[TonyK]

They were the first MLB Pennant Winners yet they have been forgotten. None of them are enshrined in Cooperstown that I know of and their accomplishments during their best years are ignored. So who were these guys?

Six of the thirteen Athletics were born in Philadelphia. Another was born across the river in Camden, NJ. Two more were native Pennsylvanians. Three were born in Europe. One player was born in MA. So this team was made up primarily of Philadelphia-area local players. It shows what brand of ball was played in Philly back then. If you look at their team photo you notice that nearly all of them had trimmed mustaches.

Nate Berkenstock, age 40, filling in due to an injury, struck out three times in his only game. Tom Pratt and Tom Berry each played in only one game. Count Sensendorfer, an OFer, hit .323. George Heuble, another OFer, stood 5' 11" and hit .307. Ned Cuthbert, the third OFer, hit only .247.

Wes Fisler was ranked the best fielding 1B in the NA in 1871. He was 5' 6" and hit .279, and preferred to wear a necktie when playing. Al Reach was 31, 5' 6" and played 2B. He hit .353. An above-average fielder, he threw left-handed. He was the first paid professional player in 1865 when he earned a salary of $25 per week. Founder of Reach Sporting Goods and the Reach Guides, Al became a millionaire thanks to the sport he loved.

Shortstop John Radcliffe was also 5' 6" and hit .303. Levi Meyerle, 3B, stood 6' 1" and must have looked like a giant compared to his shorter infield teammates. He was a tremendous hitter who batted .492 and nearly won the first Triple Crown. Despite a career .356 average, he is not in the Hall of Fame, and was considered a mediocre fielder.

The catcher was Fergy Malone who had a .343 average. He was an above-average fielder and also threw left-handed. The team's main pitcher was Dick McBride who had an 18-5 won-loss record. McBride managed the Athletics and was also a fine cricket player. His career record was 149-78. George Bechtel was the change pitcher and had a 1-2 record.

I don't have anything more to add about them. I imagine a look through Philly newspapers in late 1871 might tell us some stories about their victories over their Boston and Chicago rivals.

[rrhersh]

They were the first MLB Pennant Winners yet they have been forgotten...

...I imagine a look through Philly newspapers in late 1871 might tell us some stories about their victories over their Boston and Chicago rivals.

To a large extent this attitude is anachronistic. We look at 1870/1871, or for that matter 1875/1876, and see a huge discontinuity. At the time they didn't see it this way. In 1870 there was a collection of professional baseball clubs, and in 1871 there was similar collection, with largely the same clubs. They had reorganized themselves and had a new system for determining the championship, but there was no sense that this was something qualitatively different from what had come before, and certainly no sense that this was the beginning of something which would endure into the 21st century. We see the same thing in 1876 with the new National League. Some modern observers expect fanfares, and are mystified to find that the accounts of the first game are pretty much like any other accounts of season openings. So if you look at the Philly papers in late 1871 you will find satisfaction with a successful season, but little sense of the weight of history.

[Beady]

...Levi Meyerle, 3B, stood 6' 1" and must have looked like a giant compared to his shorter infield teammates. He was a tremendous hitter who batted .492 and nearly won the first Triple Crown. Despite a career .356 average, he is not in the Hall of Fame, and was considered a mediocre fielder.

Meyerle is a favorite of mine, for no reason I can explain, but I think "considered a mediocre fielder" gives him more than his due. He must have had a good arm, but my impression is that he was a very poor fielder otherwise, in a day when bad fielding was very expensive, and that is why he was not a great star although he certainly was an exceptionally good hitter.

There's a phrase from the book by Preston Orem, a pioneer microfilm researcher, that has always stuck with me: "the attenuated and semianesthetized Meyerle."

[TonyK]

Meyerle is a favorite of mine, for no reason I can explain, but I think "considered a mediocre fielder" gives him more than his due. He must have had a good arm, but my impression is that he was a very poor fielder otherwise, in a day when bad fielding was very expensive, and that is why he was not a great star although he certainly was an exceptionally good hitter.

There's a phrase from the book by Preston Orem, a pioneer microfilm researcher, that has always stuck with me: "the attenuated and semianesthetized Meyerle."

Based on his fielding stats from Baseball Reference, it looks like the Athletics stuck him at 3B because they already had good fielders at 1B and 2B. He definitely was not a good 3B, but his Fielding Average and Range Factor at 2B are average/mediocre. His one full season at 1B (if you can call them full seasons) is not bad either. But he was a horrible outfielder. Too bad there wasn't a DH rule.

[TonyK]

To a large extent this attitude is anachronistic. We look at 1870/1871, or for that matter 1875/1876, and see a huge discontinuity. At the time they didn't see it this way. In 1870 there was a collection of professional baseball clubs, and in 1871 there was similar collection, with largely the same clubs. They had reorganized themselves and had a new system for determining the championship, but there was no sense that this was something qualitatively different from what had come before, and certainly no sense that this was the beginning of something which would endure into the 21st century. We see the same thing in 1876 with the new National League. Some modern observers expect fanfares, and are mystified to find that the accounts of the first game are pretty much like any other accounts of season openings. So if you look at the Philly papers in late 1871 you will find satisfaction with a successful season, but little sense of the weight of history.

Thanks. I agree that they were living in the present and unaware of any role in making history. For the Athletics their win in 1871 had to give them satisfaction after coming close in previous years. Their late season victory over Chicago was probably the first big game in ML history.

[Buzzaldrin]

Count Sensendorfer, an OFer, hit .323. George Heuble, another OFer, stood 5' 11" and hit .307. Ned Cuthbert, the third OFer, hit only .247.

Wes Fisler was ranked the best fielding 1B in the NA in 1871. He was 5' 6" and hit .279, and preferred to wear a necktie when playing. Al Reach was 31, 5' 6" and played 2B. He hit .353. An above-average fielder, he threw left-handed. He was the first paid professional player in 1865 when he earned a salary of $25 per week. Founder of Reach Sporting Goods and the Reach Guides, Al became a millionaire thanks to the sport he loved.

Shortstop John Radcliffe was also 5' 6" and hit .303. Levi Meyerle, 3B, stood 6' 1" and must have looked like a giant compared to his shorter infield teammates. He was a tremendous hitter who batted .492 and nearly won the first Triple Crown. Despite a career .356 average, he is not in the Hall of Fame, and was considered a mediocre fielder.

The catcher was Fergy Malone who had a .343 average. He was an above-average fielder and also threw left-handed. The team's main pitcher was Dick McBride who had an 18-5 won-loss record. McBride managed the Athletics and was also a fine cricket player. His career record was 149-78. George Bechtel was the change pitcher and had a 1-2 record.

I don't have anything more to add about them. I imagine a look through Philly newspapers in late 1871 might tell us some stories about their victories over their Boston and Chicago rivals.

Oddly enough, in my highly exalted opinion, it's the man with the lowest average, Ned Cuthbert, who I truly believe deserves enshrinement in Coperstown. As a pioneer more than a player, sure, but Ned's passion for the sport (and the luck and timing that led him later to St. Louis) helped bring it to the masses like almost no one else in history.

[TonyK]

Oddly enough, in my highly exalted opinion, it's the man with the lowest average, Ned Cuthbert, who I truly believe deserves enshrinement in Coperstown. As a pioneer more than a player, sure, but Ned's passion for the sport (and the luck and timing that led him later to St. Louis) helped bring it to the masses like almost no one else in history.

I overlooked him. He may have been the first player to ever steal a base. Naturally he later became a league leader in stolen bases. He also played in four major leagues.

[rrhersh]

I [Ned Cuthbert] may have been the first player to ever steal a base.

For all that this is often repeated, it is completely untenable. Cuthbert's accomplishment is said to have taken place in 1865, but there are clear signs of base stealing much earlier. There is an account from 1856 of a man being thrown out trying to steal third.

My opinion is that base stealing likely was an ancient feature of the pre-Knickerbocker game. The general principle still is that the ball is live unless there is some specific reason for it not to be. The most common reasons are that the umpire has called time out, or there has been an uncaught foul ball. Neither really applied to pre-modern baseball. There is a letter from the Athletics of Philadedelphia to the New York Clipper in 1860, asking questions amounting to trying to work out when the ball was live again and a runner could try to advance. The Athletics had just switched from the local version of town ball to the New York game, and were still figuring out the implications of the rules.

[timmyj51]

To a large extent this attitude is anachronistic. We look at 1870/1871, or for that matter 1875/1876, and see a huge discontinuity. At the time they didn't see it this way.


That's not exactly how it wa viewed at th time. The
formation of the National League represented a major departure for baseball from the old AA, a departure clearly recognized by clubs, players, and the public alike.




So if you look at the Philly papers in late 1871 you will find satisfaction with a successful season, but little sense of the weight of history.



Actually, the Athletics made a big deal out of the fact that, as AA
winners, they were the first officially acknowledged national champions,
something that could only be claimed on an unofficial basis before.
Certainly a historically weighty moment.

[timmyj51]

To a large extent this attitude is anachronistic. We look at 1870/1871, or for that matter 1875/1876, and see a huge discontinuity. At the time they didn't see it this way.






So if you look at the Philly papers in late 1871 you will find satisfaction with a successful season, but little sense of the weight of history.


That's not exactly how it was viewed at the time. The
formation of the National League represented a major departure for baseball from the old AA, a departure clearly recognized, and desired, by clubs, players, and the public alike.



Actually, the Athletics made a big deal out of the fact that, as AA
winners, they were the first officially acknowledged national champions,
something that could only be claimed on an unofficial basis before.
Certainly a historically weighty moment.

[spark240]

The
formation of the National League represented a major departure for baseball from the old AA
...
Actually, the Athletics made a big deal out of the fact that, as AA
winners, they were the first officially acknowledged national champions

AA? Do you mean NA?

Got a link for the contemporary source?

[SABR Steve]

Based on his fielding stats from Baseball Reference, it looks like the Athletics stuck him at 3B because they already had good fielders at 1B and 2B. He definitely was not a good 3B, but his Fielding Average and Range Factor at 2B are average/mediocre. His one full season at 1B (if you can call them full seasons) is not bad either. But he was a horrible outfielder. Too bad there wasn't a DH rule.

Alfred H. Spink said "he was a very fair fielder, but his best asset was his ability to hit the ball hard."

[SABR Steve]

The pennant that Philadelphia won is historical but is also dubious at best.
The actual method for determining the champ was by series wins. Both Boston and Philadelphia were 7-1 in series records. To break the tie, it went to game victories, but since both teams were credited with 22, it went to fewest losses.
Philadelphia had 7 compared to 10 for Boston.

Now here it gets interesting. Philadelphia picked up one forfeiture (a game not played) from Kekionga, and picked up two more forfeitures from Rockford even though they lost because Rockford used an ineligible player. Philly, in fact, won just 19 games on the field. Boston was denied a forfeiture victory on the same grounds as the Rockford mess.

Boston received one forfeiture from Kekionga and one forfeiture from Mutual, games that were not played.
Boston won the most games that were actually played with 20 followed by Chicago and Philadelphia with 19 each.

One can't change history, but some curious decisions were made that benefited Hicks Hayhurst who hanged his Pennant in a saloon.

[Beady]

Alfred H. Spink said "he was a very fair fielder, but his best asset was his ability to hit the ball hard."

Meyerle is for some reason a favorite player of mine, but his reputation was as an extremely poor fielder indeed. And in fact, you have to understand "fair" as a 19th century sports writer's euphemism that actually means "bad." You don't see it applied to fielding so often, actually, but then you don't see many players who were good enough hitters to stay in top competition while fielding as poorly as Meyerle. The term is more commonly applied to hitting. For example:

"Smith, the new short stop of the Brooklyns, is an excellent fielder and base runner, and a fair hitter."

This can be interpreted as:

"While Smith's game is acceptable in other respects, you could stand him next to the broad side of a barn with a baseball bat and he still wouldn't hit a thing. But for one reason or another I don't want to put it that bluntly."

What does "very fair" mean, anyway? You can be very good or very bad, but you're either just fair or you're something else entirely. It's like "intensely casual." That's only if you take "fair" literally, however. If you understand that it really means "bad," then it's easy to recognize "very fair" as a polite equivalent to "very bad."

A very long time ago I read a phrase in Preston Orem's old book
"Baseball 1845-1881 from the Newspaper Accounts" that has stuck with me: "the attenuated and semi-anesthetized Meyerle." Come to think of it, maybe that phrase is why Meyerle is one of my favorites.

[SABR Steve]

The phrase, "the attenuated and semi-anesthetized Meyerle," really is an interesting way to describe Meyerle.

Attenuated means made thin or slender or fine
Semi means half
Anesthetized means rendered physically insensible. hmmmm, someone explain it to my deficient brain.

Anyway Beady, I agree he is a noteworthy player and deserves some attention.
I've been doing a project on batting champs and discovered that Meyerle is now credited with the crown in 1874 by modern researchers. John McMullin was the original champion, but researchers who had to reconstruct old box scores came up with different numbers.

[Beady]

Looking back at the whole thread, I see now I've posted the "attenuated and semi-anesthetized" quote twice. I do like it, but that's enough and I promise I'll refrain from doing it again.

But Meyerle was 6'1", which was pretty tall by the standards of the day, and lanky, somewhat homely as well, sort of Lincolnesque. That's the attenuated part. I think it's William Ryczek in his NA history who suggests he was too tall to get down and block ground balls the way a bare-handed infielder had to on the bad infields of that day. And my impression from reading Orem is that if he made an error or two early in the game he would get rattled and make more. That may help explain the anesthetized business.

It is possible he was somewhat like Dave Kingman. I always thought Kingman, although a genuinely bad fielder, was not as bad as his reputation. He could cover a lot of ground with his long legs, had a pretty decent arm, but he was very awkward, and as a result on occasion he could look very, very bad on a particular play, so bad that it might leave a lasting impression on people who saw it. Possibly Meyerle may have been something like that, because I think his defensive numbers aren't that horrendous. He must have had a really good arm, because besides playing a lot of third base he sometimes pitched, and he started off as a catcher. And he certainly could hit, but of course fielding really counted for a lot in his day.

[SABR Steve]

BTW, Beady, I have six different averages for Meyele in 1871:
.492
.493
.496
.403
.448
.488

You probably know that the original batting averages were hits-per-game. I could be wrong, but I believe the first modern batting average appeared in 1872, at least in publication. I do know that they were published in 1875. In any case, the hits-per-game continued for several years along side of the modern form of the batting average.