Early sports historical changes

[coxfan]

I'm sure I'm not the only history buff around, so I'm starting this thread for early historical changes (up to about 1940) that impacted sports. That's different from the "changes that were resisted" thread which is mainly stuff in my lifetime that I or other members witnessed.

The "dribble" in basketball began as a sort of circumvention of the rules. Dr. Naismith's first basketball rules, when he invented the game, required the player holding the ball to stay in place until he passed or shot. But players soon found that if they were too closely guarded to pass or shoot, they could roll or bounce the ball, or throw it over their head, to briefly relinquish control so they could get it back legally. They quickly found that they could achieve this effect by bouncing it continually, thus keeping better control without violating Dr. Naismith's rule since they weren't holding the ball. Soon this "dribbling" was addressed and regulated in the rules.

[coxfan]

The word "pitch" comes from early baseball, where the ball had to be "pitched, not thrown, for the bat" per the 1845 rules. That meant pitching the ball like pitching hay or pitching horseshoes: underhand and slow. It took years for overhand pitching to be fully legalized, and that despite strong objections from influential conservatives who thought emphasizing "trick" pitching would ruin the game.

But the word "pitch" remains in baseball even though it no longer fits the more general English-language definition of "pitch."

[coxfan]

When professional baseball first organized itself in 1871, it was in the form of a single organization: The National Association of Professional Baseball Players. Any club claiming to be professional could join upon payment of modest dues. As a result, clubs varied enormously in strength, with some being little more than semi-pro groups who had no financial backers. This led to a huge disparity in strength: One club would go 71-8; while another was going 2-46 while sharing in the gate receipts of the stronger clubs!

There were other problems: Fan rowdiness and gamblers led to game-fixing, and drove away families and middle-class fans. Clubs stole players under contract to others, and protected them from lawsuits. Clubs sometimes cancelled road trips if they thought they'd lose money.The player-controlled Association did nothing about these problems.

The National League was formed in 1876 to address all these problems. Clubs had to have strong financial backing to join the NL, and were assigned exclusive urban territories. Owners and the NL President took administrative control from the players, and clubs and players were expelled for abuses. (The NYC club was thrown out of the NL for cancelling road trips, I believe).
Steps were taken to discourage rowdy fans, such as increasing admission fees and banning alcohol.

With the concept of a Major League" thus established by the NL, baseball took on a broader fan appeal that took it out of its "low-class" social status. The exclusivity of the NL led to the creation of minor leagues. Later, other major leagues were tried, but all failed until the creation of the AL in 1901.

Through all this, the Boston club ( now Atlanta Braves) survived without interruption fromn 1871 until now. The Chicago club (today's Cubs) also survived from 1871, except for a two-year lapse after the Chicago fire.

[Mark17]

In baseball there have been so many changes, from the number of balls it took for a walk, to the way foul balls were/weren't considered strikes, and the use of bigger and bigger gloves through the years, and so on.

What I find really amazing is that the 90 foot distance between bases has been constant, and it worked back in the dead ball era as well as today. You'd think, with the faster and smoother infields, livelier balls, bigger single-hinged gloves, that the defense would have the advantage. But a slow-roller, or a ball hit in the hole, is still a bang-bang play at first.

That to me is the single most surprising thing that HASN'T changed.

[Roady]

In 1887 MLB counted walks as hits. The result was skyrocketing batting averages, including some near .500. Tip O'neal batted .485 that season, which would still be a major league record if recognized. The experiment was abandoned the following season.

[Roady]

As a follow up : In 2000, Major League Baseball reversed its decision, ruling that the statistics which were recognized in each year's official records should stand, even in cases where they were later proven incorrect.

Gee wonder why they made that rule?

[coxfan]

Roady, I'm not familiar with the 2000 ruling. Could you give more info? Commissioner Kuhn years ago suggested there should be a "statute of limitations" on correcting old stats when new research proved them wrong.

As a history buff, I find the idea of a "statute of limitations" on any new historical finding to be absurd. History is a science, in which new discoveries and interpretations supersede old ones just as in any science.

The one-year rule counting walks as hits essentially made the BA's the same as modern OBP's, depending on how hit batsmen and sac flies were treated. Baseball originally had no called balls or strikes. When balls started to be called, it originally required nine balls for a walk! That was reduced to four by changing the number slowly, one at a time, through successive rule changes over several years.

[Roady]

Roady, I'm not familiar with the 2000 ruling. Could you give more info? Commissioner Kuhn years ago suggested there should be a "statute of limitations" on correcting old stats when new research proved them wrong.

As a history buff, I find the idea of a "statute of limitations" on any new historical finding to be absurd. History is a science, in which new discoveries and interpretations supersede old ones just as in any science.

The one-year rule counting walks as hits essentially made the BA's the same as modern OBP's, depending on how hit batsmen and sac flies were treated. Baseball originally had no called balls or strikes. When balls started to be called, it originally required nine balls for a walk! That was reduced to four by changing the number slowly, one at a time, through successive rule changes over several years.

Just a quick search only turned up a Wikipedia article which states.
"
History

In 1887, Major League Baseball counted bases on balls (walks) as hits. The result was skyrocketing batting averages, including some near .500; Tip O'Neill of the St. Louis Browns batted .485 that season, which would still be a major league record if recognized. The experiment was abandoned the following season.
There is some controversy regarding how the records of 1887 should be interpreted. The number of legitimate walks and at-bats are known for all players that year, so computing averages using the same method as in other years is straightforward. In 1968, Major League Baseball formed a Special Baseball Records Committee to resolve this (and other) issues. The Committee ruled that walks in 1887 should not be counted as hits. In 2000, Major League Baseball reversed its decision, ruling that the statistics which were recognized in each year's official records should stand, even in cases where they were later proven incorrect. Most current sources list O'Neill's 1887 average as .435, as calculated by omitting his walks. He would retain his American Association batting championship. However, the variance between methods results in differing recognition for the 1887 National League batting champion. Cap Anson would be recognized, with his .421 average, if walks are included, but Sam Thompson would be the champion at .372 if they are not."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hit_%28baseball%29


If you are like me I like a better source than Wikipedia so I will look again when I get some more time today.

[Roady]

Sorry I haven't been able to look up anything else on it yet. I did a quick search but didn't find anything else.
I will try again when I have more time.

[coxfan]

Thanks, Roady. Yes, I find Wikipedia useful but only as a starting point, as info is often incomplete and of variable reliability. It makes a difference whether they're talking about records in the narrow sense (the most and the least) or the broader sense of a full record of all players and games. The broader sense would take it into Commissioner Kuhns' desire for a "Statute of limitations" for any corrected stats for any player.

And it also matters whether they're talking only about the "modern" era (post-1900) when basic rules had much less change than pre-1900. Then we have the recent arguments about whether PED-influenced records should be changed or non-recognized. ( They shouldn't be changed, in my view.)

And what about Commissioner Frick's ruling that Ruth's 60-HR season had to stand as a separate 154-game record, leaving open the question of many other records (pitching, batting, fielding, and base-running) that were affected by the change to 162 games, but not mentioned by Frick? Commissioner Vincent did right to overrule Frick three decades later.