New Analysis of Old Data

Supposedly when George Eliot was writing her first novel, "Adam Bede," the publisher sent her a letter asking about the topic. She responded by saying she didn't want to answer that question because she believed that art was not the subject, but the treatment of the subject. "Adam Bede," by the way is still my favorite Eliot novel. My cultural companion, DT prefers "The Mill on the Floss" since he thinks using dental floss for a building foundation shows the Victorian early appreciation of environmental issues.

I have always liked Eliot's position on this and it came to mind again as I was reading William Rcyzek's new book, "Baseball's First Inning." I was first introduced to Rcyzek's work in "When Johnny Came Sliding Home," a history of the game in the immediate post Civil War era. The author had previously written about the first professional teams so his latest work represents the the last volume in a trilogy basically written backwards - sort of like Shakespeare's approach with his two sets of four history plays. Since Rcyzek looks at the early days of baseball from a larger perspective, his work helps me set a context for the work I am doing on early New Jersey baseball.

I am only about 50 pages into the latest book, but it was the author's treatment of the question of who invented baseball that made me think of Eliot's position on art. Rcyzek doesn't offer any new information, but he analyzes the existing information in an important and helpful way. Basically he says that if we look at baseball from a genealogical perspective, everything that comes after the New York Knickerbocker Club (pictured above left) can be more or less traced back to or through that club. The Knickerbockers were founded in 1845 and played their first game or match a year later.

The problem, Rcyzek notes is what happens when anyone tries to move back earlier than the Knickerbockers. As he notes when the Knickerbockers wrote down the rules for the first time (or the first set that has survived) they were obviously working of some form of baseball game since their rules don't provide a full explanation of how to play the game. What no one has been able to do is prove or document what game it provides the basis for the game that they codified. That game which may never be found would be the missing link in baseball history on the national level. Like most people who have studied or thought about the question, Rcyzek doesn't believe that any one person invented baseball, rather it gradually evolved. Yet his perspective on the Knickerbocker's is both interesting and helpful.

As noted my own research focuses on early baseball in New Jersey where the proximity to New York City certainly was important. The current beliefs are that the first New Jersey club was the Newark club founded in 1855 and the first game or match was played that season. I believe, but have not yet been able to prove that the Newark club was not the first club, I think a Jersey City club is a more likely candidate. I started looking a week or so ago at 1854 newspapers to see if I can find a game for 1855, no luck so far, but it would be like the missing link of New Jersey baseball history and is, therefore, well worth pursuing.