underhand pitching

[kotch8]

Does anyone know the technique for underhand pitching that was used pre-1883? Was it like windmill softball pitching? How did they get velocity? Was there a period when underhanders and overhanders both were operating in the majors? Did any of the great underhanders switch over to overhand? Who was the last underhanded pitcher playing (not including Carl Mays etc)? That will do for openers!!

[Buzzaldrin]

Does anyone know the technique for underhand pitching that was used pre-1883? Was it like windmill softball pitching? How did they get velocity? Was there a period when underhanders and overhanders both were operating in the majors? Did any of the great underhanders switch over to overhand? Who was the last underhanded pitcher playing (not including Carl Mays etc)? That will do for openers!!

Radbourn, for one, never changed to overhand, and he was still quite effective, even after seriously damaging his arm in 84. Clarkson was really (as far as I'm aware) the first monster overhand star, with that huge curve of his right over the top. I don't actually know how his delivery was before 1884-85, so I'd love to be enlightened, but his curve was apparently all in his fingers, so I imagine he could work it underhanded pretty well too.

There were huge varieties in deliveries, mostly due to the pitchers' box before it was abolished. Silver King, for example, started in the back left corner of the box, stepped to his right, and threw side arm across his body to efectively hide the ball from the batter.

You could take a couple of steps in the box to get up velocity, don't know about windmilling. The second half of the 1880s featured both over and under handed pitchers.

Not sure who the last one of the "original" class of submariners was.

[kotch8]

Yo Buzz,
Superb answer. Where do you get so much information? I wonder if there were any underhanders left after they moved the pitchers' distance to sixty feet six inches?

Wouldn't a move to the right in the box bring about a sidearm delivery?

[Beady]

The transition from underhanded, straight arm true pitching to the modern delivery occurred gradually over at least ten years. Pitchers would start cheating on the rules, and the umpires couldn't control them, so the rules makers would decide to allow what they couldn't prevent. They'd set a new limit, but the pitchers would cheat on that and the rules makers would take another step back, until they finally just gave up and took all the limitations off around 1884 or 1885.

So at any given time in the late 1870's and early 1880's there would be some pitchers who stuck to the rules and others who were more aggressive about cheating on them, but I don't know if the difference would look all that large to us. Once the limits were off, though, everybody must have switched over quickly, because Billy Rhines came into the NL in 1890 with a submarine delivery, and the hitters were already unused to seeing anything like iat.

The overhanded delivery took a terrific toll on pitchers' arms, of course, and the constant changes in rules and development of new techniques turned ace pitchers into mediocrities from season to season, so careers were mostly pretty short, but I don't have the impression that a very large number of them just couldn't handle the transition to overhand pitching, if only because it was done in easy steps, and the few who could handle the workload such as Galvin, Keefe, Welch and the ultimate survivor, Bobby Matthews, thrived through everything. My impression is that the development of the curve ball, which took place at approximately the same time, was much harder on older pitchers, almost all of whom were swept away by the new pitch. Matthews was about the only one who learned it.

It seems to me you could make a pretty reasonable argument that the transition to overhanded pitching and the development of the breaking ball are the most important step in the creation of modern baseball. And this kind of thing is what makes nineteenth century baseball fascinating. It's a tremendously dynamic period, when changes could take place in a single year that we will not see in an entire lifetime.

[kotch8]

Thanks Beady. It all makes sense. In cricket they are not allowed to bowl with a bent elbow. This leads to occasional
contoversies, but in general the umpires hold the line against illegal deliveries...In baseball they seem not to have done that.

Do you know if Galvin,Keefe, Welch, Matthews began as underhanders and then transitioned to overhand?

Also, I had the impression that underhanders had breaking balls. Wouldn't Candy Cummings etc been underhanders?

[Beady]

I don't know anything specific about their deliveries, but they all started well before overhand throwing was fully legalized -- Galvin and especially Matthews, long before -- and were still pitching in the second half of the 1880's.

There were definitely underhand curve ballers, including Cummings, but it required stealthily breaking the straight-arm rule until that rule was done away with,Ii think in 1872. The phrase you see a lot around the middle and late 1870's is "underhanded thrower," to indicate someone who was bending his arm instead of using a true pitch as in horseshoes.

[TonyK]

It was a wild and crazy time back in the 1870s and early 1880s. Pitchers ran toward the batters. Some of them figured out that if they stood far to the right in the pitching box (to the batter this would look like the far left of the box), they could run, and then throw inside to intimidate the batters (who were not wearing helmets). Many batters were hit and in some seasons they weren't even given 1B when HBP.

Some of the best underhanded pitchers perfected a delivery that included a fast run at the batter, then tossing the ball straight at the batter's skull, and while the batter ducked away, watching their curveball catch the inside corner for a strike. If you keep in mind these were grown men throwing from a Little League distance, with a running start, you start to realize that pitchers dominated baseball for several years. I picture it to be like fast-pitch softball except they were using the much smaller baseball. Pitchers had inshoots, outshoots, upshoots, and down shoots.

[kotch8]

And in this wild situation the batters could stipulate high or low?
It must be that despite the underhand toss the pitchers had some weapons otherwise nobody would have thought of giving the pitcher credit for a win...rather than the shortstop for example.
Are there written records of pitching instruction in the underhand era?

[TonyK]

And in this wild situation the batters could stipulate high or low?
Are there written records of pitching instruction in the underhand era?


Batters could request high or low pitches until 1887 when new ball and strike rule changes were adopted.

That is a very good question about if there were written records or not. Many baseball fans in the 1870s and 1880s purchased the Spalding and Reach Guides before every season. In the guides were the latest rule changes along with explanations. As others have noted, umpires had to decide what to ignore and what to ban depending on what the pitchers were doing.

I think there was a trickle down effect with the rules for pitching underhanded. ML pitchers were probably the first ones to have to learn how to throw using new rules before a season began. Minor league clubs or other pro clubs might play an exhibition against a ML club and notice how their pitchers pitched. I know some minor league pitchers went and trained with ML pitchers in the off season so that would be an opportunity to learn new throwing techniques.

The minor league pitchers would then play in exhibitions against independent teams and town teams and the cycle would start again. By the time it got down to how amatuer pitchers were pitching I imagine there were a lot of arguments and debates over what was legal and what was not.

Many pitchers just took a few running steps and flung the ball as hard as they could.

[Beady]

Nobody did credit pitchers' wins and losses for a long time, but that was because one man did nearly all the pitching for a team. I think probably good pitchers were always highly paid players, but they didn't really start to dominate games in a big way until the late 1870's, when they were bringing their release point higher and throwing breaking balls.

Not much in the way of instructional material this early, but Henry Chadwick published some books back as far as 1860 or so. I don't know how much he did in the way of technical instruction for pitching. I remember that one of the early Spalding Guides, 1877 or 1878, has pictures demonstrating how to throw a curve ball.

[SABR Steve]

This doesn't really answer the question, but a New York reporter described Al Spalding's pitching style this way:

" On receiving the ball he raises it in both hands until it is on a level with his left eye. Striking an attitude he gazes at it two or three minutes in a contemplative way, and then turns it around once or twice to be sure that it is not an orange or coconut. Assured that he has the genuine article...and after a scowl at the shortstop, and a glance at homeplate, [he] finally delivers the ball with the precision and rapidity of a cannon shot."

[kotch8]

Did Radbourn throw underhand or sidearm? I've heard both...

[SABR Steve]

Did Radbourn throw underhand or sidearm? I've heard both...

kotch8, This is a passage from Robert Smith's "The Age of the Muffin."

"Like so many 'Iron Man' pitchers, he always threw underhanded, even when the rules were changed to permit overhand throwing."

By the way, the monument at his grave includes the "e" at the end of his name, as does his Hall of Fame plaque. There is evidence that he and his family spelt it without the final "e."

[kotch8]

"Like so many 'Iron Man' pitchers, he always threw underhanded, even when the rules were changed to permit overhand throwing."

Yeah, Steve. This seems definitive. Thanks. It must be they got enough on the ball to remain competitive. Not just slow pitch, but more like fast pitch softball...

[Buzzaldrin]

"Fast pitch softball" seems kind of insulting. You can get an awful lot on the ball underhanded- Eddie Feigner was supposedly clocked at 100 MPH.

When you consider that the pitchers could move around in the pitchers box, the pitching distance was shorter, there was no foul strike rule, and before 1889 pitchers had five or six balls to waste or try to nip corners with before walking anybody, you begin to realize that the period 1885-1892 (with the exception of 1887) was possibly the most difficult era in history for hitters, maybe even more so than the dead ball era. Teams routinely carried a starter or even a couple who hit below .200.

Sure, you had the stars who could hit, but when you look deeper you see things like, in 1888 for example- Cap Anson, Jimmy Ryan, King Kelly, Dan Brouthers, and Buck Ewing all hit over .300, but nobody else in the NL did (there were also only five .300 hitters in the AA that year). Three of the ten worst league averages the NL ever posted came between 1885 and 1892, with a low of .239 in 1888 (the lowest NL average ever was also .239 in 1908). That same year the AA hit only .238.

I don't think it was that easy to hit the submariners who kept their deliveries after 1884.

[kotch8]

I meant no insult. I've played fast pitch softball. That ball was on you like a shot. All you could do was try to meet it. The underhanded delivery can really whip...

[TonyK]

I meant no insult. I've played fast pitch softball. That ball was on you like a shot. All you could do was try to meet it. The underhanded delivery can really whip...

I don't know of anyone who has ever played fast-pitch softball using a baseball. That makes it even harder to hit. Plus the fear of being beaned was a constant and in some years batters weren't even allowed to take a base after taking one for the team.

[ItsOnlyGil]

It appears that Radbourne never adopted an overhand delivery.

[Brian McKenna]

Buzz and others,

Please explain this passage (New York Times 11/20/1884):


At the evening session (National League meeting) the question of overhand pitching agitated the minds of the delegates. The majority seemed to be in favor of compelling pitchers to lower the arm to the shoulder. This, however, was opposed by the delegate from providence. They were fearful that this would impair the effectiveness of their crack pitcher, Radbourne (sic), and fought stubbonly against it.

Note the date - just after Rad's terrific run in '84.

[Beady]

The Times passage is really interesting. I wonder -- although I don't have immense confidence in this suggestion -- whether the NYT reporter may have misunderstood the proposed rule.

The NL actually did change the pitching rules in 1885, but not by banning overhanded pitching. The new rule required that the pitcher deliver the ball with both feet on the ground, but it was never very popular and a month after the season started it was repeal. Providence took the lead in advocating repeal at that time, too, so perhaps this is actually the same rule misinterpreted by NYT.

I don't have a very clear picture of how the pitcher was required to deliver the ball, but it seems to have been awkward and unnatural, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was responsible for the arm injuries that virtually ended the careers of both Larry Corcoran and Charlie Sweeney early in the 1885 season. Of course any pitcher was never more than a pitch away from ruinous arm injury in this era, no matter what the pitching rules, so I can't really be sure of a connection.

[Brian McKenna]

The NYT article only said that a discussion took place - not that a rule was adopted. My actual point was - is it possible Radbourn threw overhand?

[Beady]

Yes, I understand that. What I'm suggesting is that the Times man may have gotten only a little of the discussion and mistakenly thought a complicated new proposal was something old, familiar and easily understood. In that case, when the Providence official objected to the rules change he was actually not trying to preserve Radbourne's right to throw overhand at all, because that was not in question.

I will certainly admit this is not the simplest and easiest idea to accept, but on the other hand there seems to be a lot of testimony that Radbourn was never heavily dependent on throwing overhand, if he did it at all. Believe me, if it were just an 1884 newspaper vs. Robert Smith, I would go with the contemporary source, but there seems to be a lot of testimony that he was rarely if ever threw overhand, and it's also not simple and easy to explain how this idea could have grown up in error.

It's a a nice find, anyway, and presents us with an interesting question.

[Buzzaldrin]

Wow! Good one, Brian. Gotta think about this.

[Brian McKenna]

Does anyone have contemporary pieces which state one way or the other that Rad threw underhand or overhand through the years? I'm writing his bio for the SABR Biography Project in the next weeks or so and would like to get this right.

There is also an article in the Washington Post that claims Rad could pitch with either hand but I'm doubting the reliablity of this one.

[Brian McKenna]

I'm reading the newspaper accounts surrounding the NL meetings on 11/19 and 11/20 1884 and it seems interesting that discussions are taking place about amending rules in response to Radbourn's season.

The rule about having both feet planted on the ground seems to be directly related to Rad - as one article noted it "will prevent the jumping tactics of Radbourne."

The overhand issue - which seems to have become prevalent in 1884 was addressed at the meeting on both days. The decision:


The attention of those present was called to the necessity of taking some action in regard to the overhand pitching indulged in last season. President Mills was in favor of the present style, and it was decided to allow the pitchers to throw the ball (overhand) for another season.

Also, Frank Bancroft - Providence manager - roomed with Rad at the end of the 1884 season. He later stated that he's have to help Radbourn dress and brush his hair after pitching so much in 1884. In truth, Rad pitched nearly as much in 1883. There is no discussion about his arm then - so was it an issue because he had adopted the overhand technique in '84?

[Beady]

Which sources have you read? I looked at the Cincinnati Enquirer (a paper with very thorough baseball coverage) for November 20 and 21. The Enguirer's correspondent reports the first day largely as the Times does, but gives no motive for Providence's opposition to the abolition of overhand pitching and says that Boston joined Providence in opposing the change, along with A.G. Mills, who was one day away from resigning as NL president. The Enquirer reporter does state why the majority wanted to go back to limiting the pitcher's delivery: simply to prevent pitchers from dominating games.

The next day the two-feet rule was passed, and it is not stated why the majority in favor of banning the overhanded pitch changed their minds overnight. The Enquirer man says that "strategic pitchers" will not be hindered but the rule will be hard on Jim Whitney of Boston and other fast ball pitchers.

Radbourn is not mentioned, but I would think of him as a strategic pitcher. Whitney, on the other hand, was certainly a prototypical power pitcher, and in all probability that explains Boston's opposition to limiting overhand throwing.

[SABR Steve]

According to Robert Smith, one of the finest baseball writers in history, wrote "his best (pitch), according to (Ted) Sullivan, was his underhand fastball that hopped upward as it neared the batter. He could throw a reverse curve like the modern screwball, and he invented a pitch called a 'spitter,' although he used no spit on it. Apparently it was some type of knuckle or fingertip ball--the 'dry spitter' of the early twentieth century--for it had a way of dropping like a stoned duck just before it reached the batter. 'It would,' said contemporary batters, 'come straight at you, then change its route all of a sudden.' It was this 'slow ball' that became Rad's most famous weapon, and the one that made simple folk wonder if Rad were not in league with the devil.

Although Rad pitched into the era when overhand pitching was allowed, he always threw the ball underhand. This helped him get through his toughest season, when he won the pennant for the Providence Grays, for there was many a morning that year when Rad could not raise his poor arm high enough to brush his hair."

Ted Sullivan was his manager at Dubuque of the old Northwestern League.

[Brian McKenna]

It's also interesting that Frank Bancroft said that Radbourn came to the park early everyday at the end of 1884 - first throwing the ball a few feet and then working to the point where he was throwing from the outfield to home plate.

So how many underhand pitchers warm up by long-tossing?

[Brian McKenna]

Which sources have you read?

I was reading the New York Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, St. Louis Globe-Democrat and the Chicago Tribune.

[Brian McKenna]

How about this quote:

Daily Inter Ocean 1/22/1888:


…his days of usefulness are about at an end. Radbourne’s (sic) effectiveness lies in his command of the ball. He formerly brought the ball from over his head, but has given it up entirely, as it injures his arm.

[Beady]

Well, the Inter Ocean quote really is pretty strong evidence. As to his 1884 workload, though, Bancroft's story may be true but he was one of the many early managers who were great story tellers and didn't like to let fidelity to the facts interfere with a good yarn, so I'd hesitate to take him too literally, especially if the story was being told some years after 1884. Also, comparing Radbourn's 1883 IP to 1884 is not the issue. In 1884 he sat on the bench a good deal of the early going , and it was only after Sweeney jumped the club that Radbourn began his remarkable string, pitching nearly every game the team played and winning nearly every game he pitched for a long stretch. It was that lengthy spell of concentrated and highly effective pitching, not the entire season's work, that was so remarkable.

It is true, though, that other pitchers came close to matching him. although I don't think you'll find too many other contemporary pitchers working as much in a similar period of time. John Clarkson put up an almost comparable run the next year, after Larry Corcoran broke down, but I've read the Chicago Tribune's coverage for that period, and the Trib complained regularly that overwork would probably ruin Clarkson if the Chicago management didn't find somebody to help him.

[Brian McKenna]

I've read the quotes from Sweeney about him taking on the lion's share of the work in the early part of the season, but it's not true. Rad started 13 games in May and 11 in June - Sweeney 11 each month. Sweeney left the club on July 22 and started 2 games in July for Providence.

Month to month, Rad's starts were rather steady in 1884.
May - 13
June - 11
July - 13
August - 15
September - 17
October - 4

Of course, this doesn't count exhibition games.

[Beady]

Well, I think counting by the month understates it just a little. You're crediting him with 32 games in the 61 days of August and September, a little more than every other day. But if I'm not miscounting he started 28 times in just 47 days between August 9 and September 24 That's three games every five days.

Nevertheless, you do have a point. I don't think the difference between 24 games in two early months and 32 later is insignificant, but it's not drastic. They played more games early than in August , so they could have Radbourn and Sweeney alternating in the spring and both would still be pretty busy, then they could let Rad do nearly all the pitching in August without increasing his work load really drastically. They're just lucky Sweeney didn't jump until the schedule was starting to thin.

[Brian McKenna]

That stretch of consecutive games you cite is something. Moreso, in my opinion because the NL allowed pitchers to throw over the shoulder for the first time in 1884. Radbourn I'm pretty confident at least dabbled with doing this - Sweeney more than Rad I'm told.

I think part of the trouble was $. Rad signed for much less than he wanted to before the season began. He was mad when Sweeney went down in July and he had to cover for him - and not getting paid any extra green. There may have been a whole Rabourn-Sweeney-money dynamic.