Fielding Without Gloves

[hellborn]

Something just occurred to me, wonder if anybody knows anything about it. Even though I'm used to catching in a glove with my left hand since I'm a righty, I'm more comfortable catching in my right if I don't have a glove on. Before players used gloves, did they just catch with either hand depending on which was more convenient when they weren't catching with two hands? I would imagine that two hands was preferred, but one handed plays must still have been fairly common. I think that I would favor catching with the throwing hand if I didn't have a glove on.

[RuthMayBond]

Good question. When I was young (ok, a LONG time ago) I would prefer to catch with my left hand since it is the hand I could get highest into the air (for high throws), that's how it worked for me in basketball. Trouble is, I am a lefty thrower. I had to learn to use a mitt on my right hand.

[Brian McKenna]

I don't have any specific references for this right now, but just a general feeling from my readings.

They caught with both hands, much of the time blocking the ball with their body. One-handed plays as we think of them today weren't common. Sharply hit balls to a player's right or left may have at times been deflected by a player's hand or arms or legs but that doesn't translate to an out any great % of the time - it translates into a great deal of pain. More likely, those balls went to the outfield.

With barehands it's not even advisable to take an underhanded toss at second base without both hands - for efficiency sake.

The game was characterized by a great deal of what might loosely be termed as errors but in reality had much to do with the barehanded aspect of the game. It was a hitter's game - putting the ball in play would yield a significantly larger chance of reaching first base than the gloved era. Just puruse George Wright's stats from the winning streak and you can see that it was a completely different game - in 1869 he scored 339 times with 49 home runs and a .629 batting average in a mere 57 games.

For many years catchers stood way back to take the ball on a bounce. The ones particularly abused then were the first basemen.

[Ubiquitous]

The no glove thing is also another reason why fielders tended to stand on or very near the bases. Much easier it to catch a ball if you are in a set position and ready to catch it then trying to catch the ball while running to a base.

The second part is just a guess but I'm guessing one of the big reasons for the SS was because of no gloves.

Anyone know the ratio of glove to non glove in the 70's and 80's?

For instance did Comiskey use a glove in the beginning of his career?

[hellborn]

I'm sure that a lot of hot shots to the IFers that couldn't be body blocked were just let go, to avoid hand injuries...but, I could see it being really convenient to just pick up a "routine" or weak grounder with the throwing hand and throw in one motion, like a 3rd baseman now on a roller up the line, rather than making it more complicated by catching with two hands. Of course, players will do that now when needed, but you'd think that it was more attractive back then.
One handed catches in the OF must have been very unusual...like the Kevin Mitchell one handed grab.
I played some 16" Chicago Style softball as a youngster, and remember how much even a pillowy old Clincher could hurt, one hand or two. They were rock hard and brutal when new, but softened up quickly and lasted for decades. I understand that a lot of 16" ball is played with (huge) gloves now, but there are still hardcore gloveless leagues...yards of athletic tape for the hands are needed to keep the players going!

[westsidegrounds]

see if you can find a cricket match to look at - maybe on youtube? a cricket ball is as hard as a baseball, and fielders are all gloveless except the wicketkeeper (= catcher). the hitting is pretty different - a lot more grounders, and foul tips (which can count as hits) - but you may get some ideas.

[Brian McKenna]

Other than charging bunts, two-handed plays offer a much higher % shot of ultimately making an out - even on weak-hit balls. In fact, there actually might be an advantage to fielding weak-hit balls without a glove, as there is no digging for the ball - simply secure the ball in both barehands and throw the ball to first (or wherever) with your powerhand which already has a secure grasp on the ball.

[TonyK]

I rarely saw a report of one handed grabs in early minor league games. One made in the outfield comes to mind as the player left his feet to catch the ball with one hand. I would think line drives were judgment calls depending on how hard it was hit. We don't have the experience of trial and error (now that's a good pun!) that fielders back then had. They had to learn how to catch a ball the best way possible without breaking a body part while doing it.

Now that I think about it, minor league reports of the 1880's and 1890's never mentioned who wore a glove and who didn't except for one guy. Honest Jack Lawler supposedly played gloveless right up the late 1890's or early 1900's. Since they mentioned him specifically my guess is everybody else was wearing a glove by then.

In August, I get to play the outfield in an 1864 Vintage Game wearing no glove! I'm going to try and catch a ball on one bounce for an out if I can remember to.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Bid McPhee didnt use a glove till near the end of his career in 1899 (I'd say that meant he started using the glove in mid-1890s)


I dont think even allowed gloves up into the 1880s.

[beisbolfiebre]

Originally Posted by westsidegrounds

see if you can find a cricket match to look at - maybe on youtube? ... you may get some ideas.

Excellent idea.

I watch cricket videos and players cup their hands in order to catch a ball. Some will first have their hands at chest level (bottom of hands touching) and drop their hands to catch it when the ball reaches them - this is a basket catch style. Others have their hands at forehead level (thumbs touching) and then lower them to chin or chest level in order to make the catch - this is more of a modern day baseball style.

BBC also has instructional videos and discusses catching techniques.

[TonyK]

We practiced with a 1864 replica ball last weekend. It was soft and the brown cover made it hard to see when coming out of the trees in the background. Catching the ball on "one bound" now makes sense to me. Our younger players still in their 20's had little difficulty catching long fly balls without a glove. We will see what happens next week when we play a real game.

[Brad Harris]

Intuitively, one would think that a 19th-Century fielder would catch with both hands as often as was feasible, very probably with one hand "receiving" the ball and the other covering the exposed part of the ball (to keep it from dropping/falling) in much the same way as kids today are taught to catch a fly ball (putting the ungloved hand over the opening to prevent the ball from popping out.)

It would also seem to make sense that the "catching" hand would not be the throwing hand more often than not, seeing as the "receiving" hand would be considerably more calloused, often numb and sometimes bleeding or broken. It would make throwing the baseball a great deal more difficult, for example, if the shortstop had to spear a line drive with his right hand and then set, pivot and throw accurately to the first baseman.

I think it would also make sense that most fielders would have gone after bunted balls and grounders with two hands, creating a "basket" to trap the ball in. Again, I suspect the base of the basket would consist of the (probably) left hand while the throwing hand comprised the "side" of the basket.

Can't recall reading anything about the techniques used, though I'll bet that exists somewhere.

[beisbolfiebre]

Is it possible that the baseball used in the 19th century was softer than today's ball:

http://www.19cbaseball.com/equipment-3.html


It has a rubber core rather than cork and was surrounded by thread. One note in that link shows that they were lighter. Back in the day small ball was the rule of the day as bunts and chops were used more often and 400 foot HRs were unknown.

This should explain why it was so much easier to use gloveless hands to catch the ball.

[TonyK]

Originally Posted by beisbolfiebre

Is it possible that the baseball used in the 19th century was softer than today's ball:

http://www.19cbaseball.com/equipment-3.html


It has a rubber core rather than cork and was surrounded by thread. One note in that link shows that they were lighter. Back in the day small ball was the rule of the day as bunts and chops were used more often and 400 foot HRs were unknown.

This should explain why it was so much easier to use gloveless hands to catch the ball.

The 1864 replica ball we used was much softer. When hit hard it turned into an egg-shaped object in the air. The ball got wet so we don't know if that was why it did that. The ball resembles a kids ball you might use to play catch with say a 5 or 6-year old. The weight of the ball was regulated closely in the 19th Century as was the circumference. This rubber core ball will carry very well, and if you lose sight of it's brown cover it's impossible to know where it's going. I wouldn't want to play a game back in 1864 around dusk.

[Brad Harris]

This isn't really anything to do with the 19th Century, but since we're talking about the advent of fielding gloves, around what time did gloves go from being a sort of "cushion" to being more of a "net"?

[OleMissCub]

This video I think opens up your imagination to what it would have looked like to field without gloves. Great video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILmSA...eature=related

[Bobby_Ayala]

When fielding without gloves make sure your fingernails are cut short. Also apply petroleum jelly to lessen the impact.

[RuthMayBond]

Originally Posted by Bobby_Ayala

Also apply petroleum jelly to lessen the impact.

How does that work for gripping the ball when you need to throw it?

[TonyK]

Originally Posted by OleMissCub

This video I think opens up your imagination to what it would have looked like to field without gloves. Great video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILmSA...eature=related

Great slow motion replays. Fielders have to learn how to catch and land with either hand. And no glove to soften their landing either. It is a little like 19th Century baseball from 1869-1880 or so.

[Ubiquitous]

Here is another example of baseball in the 19th century.

[Death to Crawling Things]

Originally Posted by Classic

This isn't really anything to do with the 19th Century, but since we're talking about the advent of fielding gloves, around what time did gloves go from being a sort of "cushion" to being more of a "net"?

If you are talking about the old-style small gloves you see in old pictures and such to our modern equivalent. I think that was circa 1950. I havent exactly seen any 19th century gloves, so I couldnt really say how well they correspond to the gloves of the early part of the century.

[CTaka]

Originally Posted by TonyK

The 1864 replica ball we used was much softer. When hit hard it turned into an egg-shaped object in the air. The ball got wet so we don't know if that was why it did that. The ball resembles a kids ball you might use to play catch with say a 5 or 6-year old. The weight of the ball was regulated closely in the 19th Century as was the circumference. This rubber core ball will carry very well, and if you lose sight of it's brown cover it's impossible to know where it's going. I wouldn't want to play a game back in 1864 around dusk.

Was this also called a "town ball"? I bought a replica of a baseball used in the 1860's during a trip to Cooperstown and it was called a town ball. Brown cover and much softer than a modern baseball. Seemed easier to catch being softer, but no way someone like B*nds, McGw*re, S*sa, etc would hit that ball 400+ feet. But yes, one side would get mashed in, making it tougher to catch than a round ball.

[TonyK]

Originally Posted by CTaka

Was this also called a "town ball"? I bought a replica of a baseball used in the 1860's during a trip to Cooperstown and it was called a town ball. Brown cover and much softer than a modern baseball. Seemed easier to catch being softer, but no way someone like B*nds, McGw*re, S*sa, etc would hit that ball 400+ feet. But yes, one side would get mashed in, making it tougher to catch than a round ball.

Ours was a Vintage replica 1864 ball. It sounds similar to yours. We switched to a new ball in the 10th inning with the score tied and the other teams cleanup hitter promptly hit a bullet over my head in LF for a double. It must have traveled 300 to 320 feet since I couldn't catch it on one bounce either. After two innings these balls don't travel a great distance and with the one bounce rule you don't score too many runs.

[OleMissCub]

Originally Posted by TonyK

Great slow motion replays. Fielders have to learn how to catch and land with either hand. And no glove to soften their landing either. It is a little like 19th Century baseball from 1869-1880 or so.

That's a good point about catching with either hand.

On a side note, I spent a semester of Law School at Cambridge University and I tried soooo hard to understand cricket and I never could. That is the damndest sport.

[rrhersh]

Originally Posted by CTaka

Was this also called a "town ball"? I bought a replica of a baseball used in the 1860's during a trip to Cooperstown and it was called a town ball. Brown cover and much softer than a modern baseball. Seemed easier to catch being softer, but no way someone like B*nds, McGw*re, S*sa, etc would hit that ball 400+ feet. But yes, one side would get mashed in, making it tougher to catch than a round ball.

This sounds very confused (which isn't to suggest that you are the source of the confusion, but rather whoever was marketing this thing). "Town ball" is often incorrectly taken to name any and all early forms of baseball apart from the New York game. The only such version where it is at all plausible to have a replica of the ball would be the Massachusetts game (which in fact was never called "town ball" until decades later). The most noticeable characteristic of the Massachusetts game ball is that it is significantly smaller than that of the New York game (the size of which has only changed slightly to the present day).

I suspect that this is an example of faux quaintness, with "town ball" being taken as part of Ye Olde Base Balle. feh