Thinking In Time

After Sunday's vintage games on Central Park's North Meadow, I was walking to the subway with one of my Eureka teammates and we started discussing some of the different rules of the 19th century game. For example, I mentioned that I don't enjoy watching the 1890's overhand game (or the 1880's game either for that matter) primarily because it is not a lot different from the modern game. As a result the experience loses its uniqueness and is little different than any older group of men (and sometimes women) playing baseball.

There is, however, one significant difference between the 1890's game and the modern one - the foul strike rule. Under this rule, foul balls are not strikes thereby significantly increasing the potential length of any at bat. I believe this was a big controversy at the end of the 19th century since players like John McGraw would endlessly foul off pitches until they either got a walk or a pitch they wanted to swing at. I don't like that rule either so for me 1890's games aren't unique and they have at least one rule that prolongs the game unnecessarily.

My teammate, however, had another rule, he didn't like - one in use in the 1860's and 1870's - the bound rule, especially as how it applies to foul balls. Through 1864 any ball caught on a bounce was an out, after 1864 through the 1870's, the rule still applies to foul balls. As my teammate mentioned from a hitter's standpoint, little is more sickening than tipping a pitch - thinking it is just a foul ball and then watching the catcher come up with it on the bounce and realizing the at bat is over. As a score keeper, its a wrinkle I have to keep an eye on or I end up missing outs.

I was thinking about all of this because of something I read in William Ryczek's new book, "Baseball's First Inning." He was talking about the typical experience of those playing vintage baseball for the first time and how frustrated they get with it, leading to comments about certain rules being stupid. According to Ryczek the best response is, yes ,it is a stupid rule and that is why they changed it. This reminded me of a reality of historic recreations like vintage baseball, we operate under the disadvantage of realizing how the game has changed and evolved. The pathfinders of the early game were unhampered by that knowledge and so they are playing and thinking about the game, especially how it can be changed and improved. Those attempting to recreate or re-enact look at the game from an entirely different perspective that makes it more difficult to get a sense of what it was like to know only the beginning.

That may or may not be of great significance to some one who is only try to re-enact history. It can be much more important for those trying to write history - it's the old thing about 20-20 hindsight. It is far to easy to be critical of those who came before because they made decisions and took actions with less information and less time for consideration. Another example of this was the last panel discussion at the Civil War conference, Carol and I attended in Richmond last month. The last discussion was on looking forward to the election of 1860 knowing only what was known in 1859. As a result Abraham Lincoln was hardly mentioned in the discussion because he wasn't considered to be that much of a factor. This whole way of thinking in time is something for me to keep in mind with all of my historical writing.