Monarchs Sucessfully Defend Waveland Cup

Special to The Faded Chalklines Blog-

The Monarch Club of Moscow, Ohio successfully defended the high honors from winning last year's inaugural Waveland Cup in fine form this afternoon at Waveland State Historic Site in Lexington.

They proved themselves worthy of the name of the city which doomed Napoleon as they gave the Bluegrass Barons Club of Lexington and the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame the Waterloo treatment.* Tallying the most runs and giving up the fewest, the Monarchs turned back the stern challenge offered by their esteemed opponents, taking the trophy back to their noble town on the north bank of the Ohio.

A large throng of spectators saw a first rate stick-work and capital defense which shone throughout the three contests today as the Hall of Fame Club defeated the Monarchs, the Barons defeated the Hall of Fame Red Stockings, and the Monarchs defeated the Barons.

With such exciting feats of base ball, hope abounds among the leaders of Lexington's vintage club of a challenger within Central Kentucky to spread the gospel of the 1860s version of the National Game.

(*I hope the dear reader pardons me for mixing my Napoleonic references.)

The Ballist's Bookshelf: The Great Baseball Revolt

While on a family vacation to Arizona, I managed to finish another book pertaining to the era which is the focus of this blog. It's titled The Great Baseball Revolt: The Rise and Fall of the 1890s Players League by Robert Ross and published by the University of Nebraska Press.

By the late 1880s, labor relations in baseball reached its nadir. The owners of clubs held tight grip on the salaries and the destinies of the players, which limited the say players had pertaining to their freedom as employees.

The reserve clause ruled the business side of the game by this point. The reserve clause bound a player to his club for as long as the owner pleased, dictating salary, prohibiting a player from entertaining other contracts, and ensuring better profits for the owners. Owners ran the game, they controlled the business of it, the reserve clause infuriated the players, but that was hardly the only thing that drew their ire.

Owners kept salaries artificially low, through various means, the most hated and nefarious being the Brush Classification System. Devised by Indianapolis owner John Brush, it graded players on ability, physical health, and personal habits and determined their salaries as a result. By this time, the best players rarely made more than $2,500.00 a year. A fantastic salary for the era to be sure, but one contrived in the owners' favor.

The artificially capped salaries proved to be part of the problem. Sometimes players didn't get paid for their services, either due to the club's unwillingness or inability to pay. Owners figured ways to deduct salaries, from fines to deducting the laundering of uniforms from their pay.

In addition, woe betide the man who fell injured. Many instances saw players lamed on the field not receive pay while recuperating, what's worse is when they recovered, they didn't necessarily have a roster spot to return. Replacements sometimes supplanted those hurt, but the reserve clause still bound the man to his club. This placed a man in a payless, play-less purgatory.

The environment proved perfect for rebellion, and John Montgomery Ward led the revolt. Ward, a former pitcher and current shortstop for the New York Giants was more than one of the preeminent players of the era. Armed with a law degree from Columbia University, Ward had an intellectual capacity that matched his ability to hit or defend the middle of the infield. This combination, plus his disgust with the owners, made him the ideal leader for the Players League.

By 1890, the time proved right for the players to assert their rights. A new league to rival the National League and American Association made it's debut. The league had strong investors and most importantly, the best players in the nation (to include Louisville's Pete Browning).

However, three major leagues vied for the fans' hearts and-more importantly-their dollars. The talent pool in the American Association and the National League thinned as the ranks of the Players League swelled with the best players the nation had to offer.

Louisville won its solitary major league pennant in 1890, one year after an execrable 1889 campaign (which we'll discuss later). One can make a good argument that the dilution of talent in the major leagues helped to mightily contribute to its miraculous turnaround. All three leagues faced the brink, but it seemed the Players League had the upper hand.

With these advantages, the future looked promising for the players, but would they be able to fulfil the promise? How did the labor struggles in the national game figure in to the larger struggles in American labor as a result of the Industrial Revolution?

Robert Ross tackles these issues in his recent look at the Players League. The above topics are discussed, but most importantly, he links the player's struggle with the struggle of those in America's working class. As industrialization transformed America, the gulf between those who produced and those who profited widened by the day. The Gilded Age of America saw great wealth and crushing poverty. The disparities occurred in all industries, even baseball.

The players looked out for their interests, but really saw their struggle as one with them against the owners, and really didn't sympathize a great deal with the burgeoning struggle between capital and labor in general. While organized labor saw the players as kindred spirits in the fight, the Players League didn't exactly reciprocate.

However, the players weren't the only laborers whose livelihoods lay in the balance. Those who built the parks, made the equipment, and tended the fields all had a stake in the game. Unfortunately, many times in the founding of the Players League, the concern of those who ran the new league and its players proved myopic when it came to the logistical support of the game.

For those looking for page after page of diamond heroics, this won't satisfy you. For those looking at a strict monograph, you'll be pleased to a degree. But for people interested in the labor history of the game and the labor history of the United States, this is your book. It weaves a history of labor and baseball and does a good job of giving an overview of the situation facing the players at this point in the game's history and their attempt at redressing the inequities.

My biggest complaint is that it, like many baseball books treats the American Association as a bit of an afterthought. But that is more a personal pique rather than any real flaw with the book.

It's worth a look for anyone who wants to understand the era this blog covers or those who are interested in the game's difficult history regarding labor.

The biggest thing to realize about professional baseball, especially the finances of the game, there were never any "good old days" of apple pie, mom, and puppies when it came to capital and labor or how the behind the scenes deals enabled the action on the field.

Since the beginnings of professionalism, it's been a ruthless and many times heartless endeavor. Both sides want theirs and will do their best to get it, for the bulk of the game's history, the owners have mostly been on the winning side. But with the death of the reserve clause in 1976, the players' prospects have taken an obvious uptick as evidenced by player salaries (fully earned in this author's opinion).

The Great Baseball Revolt reminds us of this struggle and how important it is to the history of the game and our nation.

The '88 Colonels-April 1888, or Blue Ribbons, Pig-Stickers, and Bull Rings

As I stated in my previous post, unfortunately, an insanely busy April and May of this year prevented me from properly researching and posting about the 1888 Colonels. I've been working extra innings to rectify this, here's my first post to catch up with our friends from Gilded Age baseball.

When we last left the Colonels, they'd been mostly breezing through their spring exhibition schedule. Louisville scheduled a game against the defending National League Champion Detroit Wolverines, but April showers prevented the interleague encounter.

Louisville vented their frustration at missing an opportunity at playing the NL champs by sweeping two games against the Western Association's Milwaukee Brewers.

On April 16 and 17 Buffalo and Louisville split a two game series, Louisville's starters, Guy Hecker and Scott Stratton performed well in both games, Hecker didn't get support, Stratton, Louisville's "veritable wonder," did.

Before the April 16 game, an evangelist preached a temperance sermon, and according to the Courier-Journal, got every Colonel to sign an oath to abstain from alcohol, including the champion drinker/batsman, Pete Browning.

As base ball solidified its grasp as the National Game in the years following the Civil War, the temperance movement in America gained steam. Americans had earned a reputation for overconsumption of alcohol and the ill effects of drink worried many in the nation. A strong prohibition movement grew in an attempt to dry the nation out. Many people signed the pledge to stop drinking, this drive came to Eclipse Park on April 16 and at least for a time included the Falls City's beloved Colonels. The local press called them the "Blue Ribbon club," as the blue ribbon denoted one who'd taken the temperance pledge.

Pete Browning, certainly enjoyed a "drink of an eve" to quote Johnnie Parsons, it seems his drinking started as an attempt to dull the pain of mastoiditis, a painful, debilitating ear ailment. This self-medication grew into a fondness for drink, which was well-known to just about everyone in the city of Louisville and the American Association. His future endeavors indicated he didn't keep his pledge long.

The Colonels left Louisville on the evening of April 17 for St. Louis, where they'd face the three-time defending American Association Champion Browns to open the 1888 campaign.

St. Louis brewer, Chris Von Der Ahe built a dynasty in short time. They had such stalwarts as Arlie Latham, Charles Comiskey (the future owner of the Chicago White Sox), and Tip O'Neil. In 1887, O'Neil hit for the highest average in the history of Major League Baseball when he bat .435. This is incredible at first glance, however this number is inflated by the fact that in 1887 walks counted as hits. This is one of the many statistical anomalies of the game's history, one that I'd like to explore more later, but for now will just present to you in this truncated form.

It's safe to say the Colonels faced a formidable opponent to start the season.

On April 17, the Courier-Journal optimistically predicted a split for the St. Louis series. In my readings of the Louisville paper, it's safe to say the local writers didn't hide their partisanship and as a result overestimated the capabilities of the Colonels. The four-game tilt with the Browns proved this point.

St. Louis blanked Louisville in the opener 8-0 in front of 5,000 on a day that "was bright and sunshiny, a marked contrast to Manager John Kelly's face at the end of the ninth inning."

Louisville had trouble with every facet of the game, only eking out three hits, sloppy defense, and poor pitching.

The next day proved little better, Guy Hecker got hit hard, giving up 24 hits in a 13-7 loss. Pete Browning managed a triple in spite of a cold, but the Colonels performance proved forgettable otherwise.

Sports fans and the sporting press can be fickle, today's hero is tomorrow's goat. It's always been that way, as the Courier-Journal stated Guy Hecker was a "trifle too fat" and he "should condition himself better." The week before the same paper defended Hecker's apparent 30-pound weight gain from the writers of the Baltimore Sun, stating he was not "too fat" after he'd pitched well against Buffalo. How soon we forget!

After an off-day, the Colonels lost yet again to the Browns, 11-7 in spite of a strong outing by Scott Stratton. Louisville's defense again appeared to have stayed in the Falls City, as the Colonels committed many errors.

St. Louis completed the sweep the next day as the Browns pounded Toad Ramsey, who had difficulty commanding his drop curve. Once again, the Colonel defense did little to aid Ramsey's pitching woes and in spite of good base running, Louisville lost 11-6.

Louisville limped out of St. Louis and headed west to Kansas City for a four-game roundup with the Cowboys.

The hefty Guy Hecker took the mound against the Cowboys in what the Louisville press called the "bull ring" on the 24th and he got lit up a second time and the Louisville defense, as usual so far for 1888 didn't show up. However, the Colonels made a game of it, losing 15-13. Pete Browning came up a double short of the cycle and Reddy Mack homered, but the offense couldn't make up for a losing effort in the field and on the mound.

Scott Stratton and Pete Browning led the Colonels to their first victory in 1888, winning 15-6. The Colonel offense stayed hot, as Browning went got five singles in five at-bats and Stratton helped his own cause with two hits.

Louisville made it two in a row on April 25 as they stampeded the Cowboys 18-6. Toad Ramsey found the command of his drop curve he so sorely lacked in his previous start, and the offense continued to click on all cylinders.

Guy Hecker closed out the Kansas City series with a solid 7-3 win on April 26. He had control issues, but also scattered only four hits over the first eight innings.

Admittedly the Cowboys weren't as good as St. Louis, but the Colonels looked good in the 3-1 series win. As the Derby City boys pulled out of Kansas City for their home opener, they and the City of Louisville had high hopes for the next series against Cincinnati.

Cincinnati had just taken a series from St. Louis, three games to one and over their years in the American Association proved one of the best teams in the circuit. The proximity of the Falls City and the Queen City made the two teams bitter rivals. The Louisville press especially spewed invective against their foes up the Ohio. In the coming series, the Courier-Journal called Cincinnatians and their club chumps, "beer drinkers and pretzel eaters" in a slur on the city's German heritage (which is strange, as Louisville has a strong German history as well), and "pig stickers," as Cincinnati was a major pork processing center.

A strong crowd of 3,000 filled Eclipse Park on Saturday, April 28 and the Colonels didn't disappoint, winning 6-4 on the strength of a four-run second and the arm of Toad Ramsey.

An enthusiastic throng of 7,000 Derby City and Queen City residents showed up the next day of the second game. Three boats from Cincinnati brought 1,500 supporters, so a goodly mix of supporters filled the stands.

The Courier-Journal stated "the game was a contest for blood from the start" as the young Scott Stratton faced Cincinnati's "Apollo of the Box" Tony "The Count" Mullane. The handsome Mullane proved a stalwart of the Association and his record made him a formidable opponent for all AA clubs. Stratton found that out this day, as the Reds played well in every particular, winning 8-3.

On a cold close of the month of April, a small crowd of roughly 500 braved the weather to see Louisville go into the bottom of the ninth with a 5-3 lead and two outs. (Note, until 1950 the home team could pick to bat first or second, so Louisville batted first this game, giving the Reds the last at-bat.) Hecker, who'd pitched well, subsequently put two men on as second baseman Bid McPhee came to bat. The future member of the Baseball Hall of Fame subsequently hit a triple, tying the game 5-5. The next batter singled McPhee in and the Colonels lost in crushing fashion.

The Colonels closed out the Cincinnati series in abysmal fashion, as Tony Mullane scattered four hits, leading the Reds to an entirely dominant 18-2 victory. The painful loss of the day before apparently hung over the Louisville nine as the Colonels committed a ghastly 13 errors, and Toad Ramsey proved entirely ineffective in the box.

The end of the first three series of the season saw Louisville sit at a 4-8 record. So far the pitching proved uneven and the defense shoddy at best, while the offense for the most part proved highly competent. Baseball's a long season, and so far, while discouraging, nothing seemed to indicate the Colonels couldn't have a good season.

The coming days soon tested that notion.

Book Review-Baseball Before We Knew It

First, I'd like to apologize for my lapse in posting, work and my other sporting love-motor racing have gotten in the way of late. No excuse mind you, but I feel I need to explain myself! The 1888 Louisville Colonels retrospective is still on, but it'll be about a week before I can be fully caught up.

The last month hasn't been a total loss vintage base ball-wise, I got into some action in a couple games in Covington against the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame team and managed to hit line drives at every single player on the left side of the infield. Also, I've just about finished David Block's Baseball Before We Knew It.

This isn't a new title, as it's about 15 years old, but it's a valuable addition to any serious scholar of the game's bookshelf. This is a must-have.

Ask the average person who invented baseball and they'll most likely answer "Abner Doubleday" one day in Cooperstown, New York in 1839. Alas, this isn't so. The future defender of Fort Sumter and the man who commanded the Federal forces on the field briefly on the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg had a distinguished life, well-respected by his peers, but baseball inventor he ain't. He was at West Point at that time, enduring the rigors of Academy life.

Doubleday became baseball's creator at the end of a dispute between two of the giants of the early years of the sport. Sporting goods magnate and former pitcher Albert Spalding and the magisterial baseball writer, statistician and historian Henry Chadwick had a running debate between themselves for roughly 20 years as to the game's progeny.

Spalding, proud American to the core, insisted some bright young American lad invented the game. Chadwick, a British expatriate, insisted baseball developed from the British game of rounders. In the sporting press they jousted, mostly in good nature, about the evolution of baseball.

Spalding eventually established a commission to verify who invented the game, and long (long) story short, Abner Graves, essentially a superannuated Colorado crackpot wrote a ludicrously detailed letter regarding how he witnessed the Abner Doubleday invent of baseball as a young man in Cooperstown in 1839. The letter and it's information is spurious at best, but Spalding had what he needed. Doubleday became the game's founder and in the public's eye, the game had a purely American genesis.

Turns out research debunked this story. So is Chadwick right? Not exactly.

Bat and ball games go back time immemorial. David Block masterfully accounts the variety of games played with stick and ball having vestigal semblance to baseball. These games not only developed in England, but all over Europe, North America, and even Africa.

Block, as well as other researchers did masterful work in researching obscure, centuries-old sources to trace down the family tree of baseball.

English writer Jane Austen mentions baseball in Northanger Abbey, written in 1799, well in advance of Doubleday. But that's not the first reference of the game in print. Baseball, stoolball, French "poison ball" among others all have traits similar to our game.

Soldiers on both sides of the American Revolution played stick and ball games, some referenced to base. George Washington himself threw a ball around with his staff at times. Imagine, Washington and Alexander Hamilton throwing a ball around, it's a shame that didn't make it into Hamilton.

In short, baseball has a long history. It's history is still longer than what we know, not to spoil the book, I'll stop here. But, anyone who wants to know about the creation of our game needs this book. It's a must, not only for it's debunking of the Doubleday myth, but also that rounders fathered base basll entirely. The truth is always much more complex, as David Block so skillfully masters in his book Baseball Before We Knew It.

SABR Lecture on 19th Century Base Ball in Kentucky

This morning I had the privilege to talk with members of the newly formed Lexington Chapter of the Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) about 19th Century Kentucky Base Ball. Videos of the discussion and subsequent Q&A session are provided below and available on YouTube by searching "SABR Lecture on 19th Century Base Ball in Kentucky."

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Information on the Sweet Lou Johnson Lexington Chapter of SABR can be found on their Facebook page at www.facebook.com/sweetloujohnsonlexington.

SABR Sweet Lou Johnson Lexington Chapter's Next Meeting

Day: Thursday, May 17

Time: 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Location: Lexington Public Library Eastside Branch, 3000 Blake James Drive Lexington, KY 40509

The '88 Colonels-Exhibitions Begin

In the days before all teams went south for spring training, clubs often played local or minor league nines to get into shape for the coming campaign.

The beginning of April 1888 saw the resumption of base ball activities in the Falls City. On April 1, the Memphis Club of the minor league Southern League made April Fools of the Colonels, defeating them 8-6.

John Ewing pitched for the Memphis club, and his curve ball gave Louisville fits all afternoon. The Courier-Journal bemoaned the "inability of Louisville batters to hit at the proper time the swift curves delivered by Ewing." The Louisville paper complimented the 25 year-old's skill, stating he struck out seven and fielded the position well. The Courier-Journal stated John Ewing had the potential to be as good a player as his brother Buck Ewing.

Buck Ewing was one of the finest players of the 19th Century, playing a multitude of positions, and playing all of them well. His best renown came as a catcher for the New York Giants, had a career 47.6 Wins Above Replacement (WAR), one of the best of the decade. His exemplary play led him to the Hall of Fame in 1939.

Time would tell if John could match his brother Buck and Louisville would hear more from him later on in 1888. But on this day, he did quite well.

The local press tried minimizing the defeat of the Derby City nine, as the Courier-Journal stated,"the playing yesterday should not be taken as an example of what the Louisville team can do." The the paper said Colonels took little to no outdoor practice at this point in the season, while the Memphis club had a few weeks worth of outdoor practice in order to shake off the rust of a long winter's layoff.

According to the Courier-Journal, the Memphis Nine included Davy Force, a stalwart second baseman, third baseman, and shortstop of both the National Association and the National League. Force began his professional career in 1871 with the Washington Olympics of the National Association. Historians consider the National Association baseball's first professional league and Force lasted the entirety of its existence from 1871 to 1875. The Association died after the 1875 season, and Force joined the NL after its founding. He spent the bulk of his time there playing for the Buffalo club. His career in the NL ended in 1886. Like many players then and now, he apparently didn't stop when his time in the show ended. Against Louisville, Force collected one hit in five and played shortstop and right field.

Louisville's star, Pete Browning, didn't take the field against Memphis.

The first game didn't go well, but baseball's a daily game, and the next days brought success to the Colonel nine.

On April 3, The Colonels played a local amateur nine called the Deppens and decisively defeated them, 9-0. Louisville pitching walked nine, but struck out ten. Outfielder Hub Collins went 3 for 5 and Louisville committed no errors (a rare occurrence in this era). Pete Browning made his first appearance in this game, going 1-5.

The next day, Louisville soundly defeated the Deppens again, this time neither team played as tightly, as the Colonels won 19-9. The solid defense of the day previous didn't hold, as both teams gave up only four earned runs a piece.

The Courier-Journal advertised a visit by the defending National League champion Detroit Wolverines in games for Saturday, April 7 and Monday, April 9.

A good crowd of 2,000 showed up on Saturday April 7, but didn't get a chance to see the Wolverines square off against the Colonels. A train accident in Nashville prevented Detroit from making it to Louisville on time. As fortune would have it, the St. Paul Apostles of the Western Association arrived in Louisville from Cincinnati and agreed to play the Colonels and satisfy the crowd with a game (and ensure a pay day for both clubs).

Louisville handled the Apostles with relative ease, 11-3. Browning paced the Colonel attack, going 3-5 with two doubles and one single. Pitcher Toad Ramsey scattered five hits. It's safe to say the Louisville fans went home happy, even if they didn't see the NL champs.

Louisville still had rust to knock off in advance of a difficult AA season, but they'd generally played well, even if it wasn't against big league competition. The biggest challenges laid ahead.

Resources for this post came from articles in the Courier-Journal from April 2, April 4, April 5, and April 8, 1888. Information on Davy Force came from pages 94-95 of Nineteenth Century Stars: 2012 Edition, edited by Robert Tiemann and Mark Rucker and published by the Society for American Baseball Research. Buck Ewing's career information came from his page on Baseball-Reference.com. (As a history major, I apologize for not having my sources in the Chicago Manual of Style!)

Them's the Rules!

With the turn of the calendar to April, most vintage base ball clubs have either begun play or will begin play shortly. All ballists look forward to the day they can put their uniform on again, go out there, bang out hits, and make incredible catches on the fly, or bound. But with that comes a responsibility. Know the rules and customs of the era you're playing.

Vintage base ball clubs do not play one uniform era, it runs the gamut from the late 1850s to the turn of the 20th Century. The reasoning for this is legion. Some groups portray specific clubs (i.e the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings, The New York Mutuals, the Brooklyn Atlantics, etc.) and they play the rules observed by the clubs they're portraying. Some nines play rules popular among clubs in their region. My club, the Bluegrass Barons, plays in a region that plays by the 1865 rules and most clubs portray themselves around 1869. The Tennessee Vintage Base Ball Association plays by 1864 rules. Each club or region does it a little differently in this regard, however, that doesn't excuse not knowing the rules and customs.

In my experience, I've seen people lose tempers and get upset over misinterpretation or ignorance of the rules, whether it's because they're playing by a set of rules different from their own or for the fact they've never sat down and read the rules of the game they're playing. There's no excuse for this, if we're going to portray the game as it was in 1860, 1870, or 1900, we as vintage ballists need to know what the rules say.

The old axiom of "ignorance of the law is no excuse," applies for base ball as well as it does the law. Just because a player doesn't know something is a rule, doesn't mean they cannot be called out on it. This doesn't just mean for the rules of their club's era, but also for clubs they play against.

My club plays by rules approved by the National Association of Base Ball Players for the 1865 season, the "Fly" Rule. This rule stated that a ball had to be caught on the fly in fair territory in order to be an out. Many clubs play by the rules of the previous era, known as the "Bound" Rule. This set of rules stated a ball could be caught on the fly or one bound in fair territory and be considered an out. (Both the "Bound" and "Fly" rules allowed for balls caught on one bound in foul territory and considered an out.) Just because I play by the fly doesn't mean I should know just those rules, I need to know the bound rule as well. By knowing those rules, I can play that game more competently and be able to answer spectator questions about the rules. That's part of being a vintage ballist.

The availability online of rules makes it easy for anyone interested to learn the rules of the era they want to portray. The Vintage Base Ball Association (VBBA), which helps oversee the 450 or so vintage clubs in existence in America has rules for just about every possible variant of the game on their website. Along with that, there are people in this organization who can help clarify and interpret what they say. They've done a yeoman's work in researching base ball's past and it's so easy to access.

Many times, I've seen local custom determine how the game is played more than the rules governing the era. What I mean by this is certain aspects of on-field play, such as sliding, stealing, leading off, and defensive shifts are all regulated by custom, and this custom in many instances usurps the rules. I've played in many areas where a runner can only get a two step lead off, I had a pitcher in a game last year who told me that I lead to far off (more than two steps) and that he'd start trying to pick me off if I didn't get back in accordance with the "rules." The thing is, there's nothing in the rules which limit the amount a runner can lead off. It's strictly a ground rule of that club, however over time, these ground rules become "The Rules."

The same goes for defensive shifts, many games we play require a straight up outfield defense and for the infield to play two steps off the bag, with the exception of either the second baseman or shortstop, one of those can play as far off the bag as they wish, so long as the other part of the combination is two steps off. There's never been a limitation as to how the defense can play in this regard. As the game evolved, so did the tactics by which clubs played. Clubs always played to win and they sought better ways to go about it. The limits we place on play we do ourselves.

That said, should we not impose such rules? That's not for me to say, that's up to the members of each nine. However, IF a club decides to play with certain ground rules, let the spectators know. It's alright to not call strikes (as the rules beginning in the late 1850s stated for batters unwilling to swing at hittable pitches after receiving a warning), but the club should be able to explain this to the crowd, that the fact they don't do this is a ground rule and not what the rules of the era stated. Don't let custom take the place of actuality. It's okay to have these rules as long as a club can explain that to the spectatorate, but let's not enshrine our ground rules into an equality with the actual rules of the era.

I'm not saying clubs shouldn't have ground rules or local customs, but they should also not conflate them to being the actual rules, nor should they take offense if teams they play do not have such edicts in effect on their grounds. Vintage base ball is supposed to be fun, but also supposed to be "vintage," which means we must know the rules and customs of the era we're playing.

The vintage base ball player is a teacher as much as a hobbyist, we're imparting knowledge to the crowd as much as we're having fun.