Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Forum: 19th Century Baseball

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • PLowry
    replied
    New Forum: 19th Century Baseball

    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 [email protected]

    Leave a comment:


  • PLowry
    replied
    New Forum: 19th Century Baseball

    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • digglahhh
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • Gotham
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • ElCaminoSS
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gotham
    replied
    Originally posted by westsidegrounds
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    Originally posted by 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
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • webmaster
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • westsidegrounds
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TonyK
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • brewcrew82
    replied
    Originally posted by 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.
    I was thinking the same thing...

    Leave a comment:


  • ElCaminoSS
    replied
    Thats a really good idea

    Leave a comment:


  • BasEbaLlKnoItAll
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X