Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Notice anything unusual?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Anywhere, but here
    Posts
    4,979

    Notice anything unusual?

    Anyone notice anything unusual abouth this photograph?

    It's the first time I've seen it. I see it in the Tour de France all the time, but never on the diamond.

    The Cuervo Gold, the fine Columbian, make tonight a wonderful thing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the Seven Valleys
    Posts
    2,449
    The third base coach has what looks like his number 23 patched onto the back of his uniform? Was he wearing someone else's maybe?

  3. #3
    wamby Guest
    Maybe they added the numbers after the season began.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Rockland County, NY
    Posts
    7,998
    Blog Entries
    1
    Is that Ty Cobb sliding into 3rd?
    Keep Spraying Maine

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by GiambiJuice
    Is that Ty Cobb sliding into 3rd?
    I don't see the spikes leading, so probably not.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    4,595
    I don't see the spikes leading, so probably not
    Of course not, he already hit the base.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    An Undisclosed Location With Dick Cheney
    Posts
    4,620
    What's the answer runningshoes? What are you seeing?

  8. #8
    wamby Guest
    I don't know if Cobb ever played against a team that wore numbers on their backs. This photo looks to me like is's from the 30s.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Somewhere in the Seven Valleys
    Posts
    2,449
    Since he hasn't told us yet, what is that little object in foul territory? A water bottle?

  10. #10
    There are a few unusual things in this photograph:

    1. The number on the coach’s uniform actually looks to be something slipped over the uniform. I also don’t see a number on the defender’s uniform, although if it were a single digit, it might not appear.
    2. There is an object (looks like a shoe/cleat/glove) in front of the coach.
    3. The umpire is in the worst possible position to make the call, unless he was in the stands.
    4. I assumed at first that this was a play at third. After further review, I think it is a play at first. Look at the lack of grass in the middle of the photo and how the grass angles in on the right. Also the size of the glove (if this photo was taken in the 30’s or early 40’s), that’s a pretty big glove.

  11. #11
    wamby Guest
    The object near the coach is probably the glove of someone who is on the team at bat. I think the play is at first also. Maybe it's a pick-off attempt.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    6,381
    yeah, it seems to be at first - why would the ump be positioned in foul territory for a pick-off? might be a rundown or a return to the base after a catch

  13. #13
    wamby Guest
    The ump may have been stationed along the foul line. If it wasn't a post-season game, there were porbably only three umps and they probably postioned themselves differently then we are used to seeing.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    6,381
    i see but from the angle he's at he would have to be positioned at the foul line in front of first base probably blocking the runner and first baseman's line of sight to the plate - either way he's out of position even by 1930 standards

  15. #15
    wamby Guest
    I was thinking that maybe he ran down the line, from the infield skin, to cover the play, but stayed in foul ground to avoid getting hit by a throw. The players ran the bases differently in the past, amybe this caused the umps to take different postions than they do today.

    Or maybe this was spring training or an in-season exhibition and the ump was an amateur, and didn't know how to position himself.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Baltimore
    Posts
    6,381
    okay but unless there is some sort of rundown play how could the ump have time to run anywhere during a simple pickoff?

  17. #17
    wamby Guest
    I don't know. Maybe the ump positioned himself parallel to the bag.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Diboll, Texas
    Posts
    20
    That's a glove in the foreground. Maybe the home ump followed the play up the line, I dunno...

  19. #19
    wamby Guest
    The home ump would have probably been wearing a chest protector.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    6 km from Comerica Park
    Posts
    1,760
    The baserunner looks like George Kell. The "Detroit" written on the uniform could be from the 30's or 40's. Kell came to the Tigers in 1946. Gloves were left on the field until the early 50's.

    The first baseman has a logo on his shirt that might be the interlocking NY of the Yankees. He's a big guy, throws right-handed. The trapper isn't very big - but it does have that rectangular shape to it. The Yankees went through loads of 1B after Gehrig got sick, until Johnny Mize more or less got the job in 1949. Mize did throw right-handed, and he was a big guy (6'2", 215 lbs.). Mize wore #36 for the Yankees, so I doubt if it was him.

    The Tigers #23 in 1947 and 1948 was John McHale. That would make sense - a future MLB executive (and very marginal ballplayer) is brought up to be a player-coach.
    Last edited by Gee Walker; 07-14-2006 at 07:33 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •