Proposing a midseason All-Star Game and its squads … in 1915
Ferdinand Cole Lane (1896–1984) pitched this idea to American and National League owners, in separate discussions at about the same time in December 1915. He engaged in serial conversations with AL owners and league president Ban Johnson proposal because their formal meeting would take place in Chicago on the 15th, only one day after the opening meeting of the NL owners at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City.
Readers of Baseball Magazine would not learn of this proposal for an actual All-Star game — indeed, a weeklong series of games — even though Lane selected his all-Americas in the December 1915 issue, as he had done for the prior year. A midseason All-Star Game had made its first appearance in Organized Baseball in the Hudson River League of 1903, but neither Lane nor anyone else had seemed to notice (see: https://bit.ly/2NDcCzE).
Below, excerpts from Lane’s proposal for an All-Star week, from the never published minutes of the NL Board of Directors, December 14–17, 1915. John Tener, NL president, addressed the assembled magnates:
PRESIDENT TENER: Gentlemen, this is Mr. Lane of the Baseball Magazine, who has on one or more occasions spoken to me about a matter which is in his mind, which he believes would be not only to the interest of the game but perhaps of interest to all of you in the increase of your receipts. His thought is that at or about the middle of the season you would stop the schedule or suspend the schedule for seven days while a picked team from the American and the National League would play in certain cities of the circuit. Now Mr. Lane, as you can observe, we are in the midst of our business here and to give you this opportunity to explain as briefly as need be, that will cover your subject, how long would you say you would want?
MR LANE: About five or ten minutes.
PRESIDENT TENER: Oh, well, take twenty minutes if you want to.
MR F.C. LANE: Thank you very much.
Lane rambled on for what I imagine must have seemed far longer than five or ten minutes or twenty, before getting at the appeal to baseball’s money men. “We have found in our business, and you undoubtedly have found the same, that interest increases as the season advances. It starts rather slowly. It grows; it does not increase steadily, but rather gradually to the end. It is at red heat at World’s Series time. Now I feel it would be of immense importance to the game outside of any advantage from the event itself, to have a big spectacular event in the middle of the season like this, simply because it would stimulate interest in the game.”
Lane continued:
Offhand, the suggestion made to your president and the suggestion which I also made to Mr. Johnson in Chicago was that the place of meeting was immaterial. This is not a local event. It is purely a league event. It is unlike the World’s Series. It is unlike anything else. It is a meeting of the two leagues, a meeting of the star players of the two leagues, a purely national event. I would suggest that the games be played in New York and Chicago or Boston and possibly Philadelphia, in the big cities, purely as “grand opera,” as I told Mr. Tener, in the cities where the money is, precisely where the money is.
As for the price of admission to these games, I do not think there is anything to be gained by having small amount of admission. Take the classic illustration of the Harvard-Yale game. I was up there this year. I was there last year. If the admission had been ten dollars instead of two dollars it would not have made a particle of difference in the attendance absolutely none. The grounds would have been full to any capacity at any price.
There is a certain psychological effect in charging a good price for an event. The more you charge, in some people’s minds, the better your project is, the more they are getting for their money.
Objections were raised, notably by Charlie Ebbets, that pulling two stars off each team — say, Daubert and Wheat — would render them weakened in the pennant race, which would continue during All-Star week. C.J. Sullivan of the Giants brought up that taking Cobb and Crawford off the Detroit club would leave with nothing, as they were the whole team. Lane said that he had discussed this with Tigers owner Navin and AL president Johnson and they had seemed to grasp its good sense, as each club would lose two key players.
Another NL owner suggested that if the leagues suspended regular play during All-Star week, the missing games could be made up with doubleheaders … or the regular season could be extended into October. This presented the problem of having to pay the players for another month beyond their six-months’ contracts.
A deflated F.C. Lane was thanked for his most interesting idea and escorted from the room. And yet his idea for a midseason All-Star Game was adopted for 1933 by both MLB and the Negro Leagues. And while it may not be a weeklong affair, it is very nearly so.
***
Below is Lane’s story from Baseball Magazine for December 1915, written before the NL meeting at which he made his revolutionary proposal. The article focused on selecting the best players of 1915 for a game, or series of games, that none of them would ever know about.
The All-America Baseball Club
The Leading Players of 1915 — The Crack Teams of the National and American Leagues — The Most Formidable Club on the Diamond Today BY F. C. LANE
Choosing an All-Star team of baseball players is a fad with most fans. At this season of the year the country is flooded with selections more or less accurate. In the nature of things such a task must depend upon the personal judgment. The Baseball Magazine, however, has made a serious study of the precise situation in diamond circles, and its opinions are in no sense haphazard. As a national publication it has no prejudices. Its selections in the past have been looked upon as authoritative, and we believe the present analysis of the season’s records is essentially correct.
“A player is either a hero or a bum. There is no half way business in world’s series time.” The speaker was Pitcher Foster of the Red Sox and the time the eve of the great series just closed. For our present purposes the statement he made, though a trifle blunt, is essentially correct.
For our theme is the selection of an all-star team for each Major League and that grand assemblage formed from a combination of the two, known as the All- America team, an assemblage of purely first magnitude luminaries. There are many good, reliable players in baseball, many players who are easily rated as stars. But unlike the usual adage that there is room at the top, there is room for but one name at the head of our list. We are after heroes exclusively. The man in the ranks will get his innings later.
We would be far afield from the dictates of ordinary courtesy if we assumed for the following choice, the claim of perfection. Such it is not and such it makes no pretense of being, and yet we have given much thought and time to the subject of choosing an all-America team and have carefully canvassed the situation among a variety of reliable sources. And the selections have been made only after a careful survey of the field and a fine balance of all the facts.
The National League, as the older of the two great leagues of organized base-ball, will merit our attention first. Beginning with the infield and starting at its initial position let us glance for a moment at first base.
THE BASEBALL MAGAZINE ALL-AMERICA TEAM
The All-America team annually selected by the Baseball Magazine is always in process of preparation for weeks in advance. Scores of baseball players are interviewed with reference to the leading players on the diamond. Their opinions are carefully sifted and weighed, supplemented with whatever information may be derived from other sources. In the end no personal observation of the men themselves is allowed to sway the result unduly, for it is conceded that a player may show either above or below his average form during any single series. The final records of the season are given all the prominence they deserve, and a diligent effort is made not to exaggerate their importance. For, after all, figures, however eloquent they may seem, can tell only so much of a man’s ability. The result of this complicated survey of the baseball field is inevitably a team of remarkable collective strength. That differences of opinion may exist on certain players selected goes without saying. But the Baseball Magazine, in its scope of a national publication, is free from two general defects. It gives no undue prominence to the showing of a player in a World’s Series, realizing that such a showing is inconclusive, since only two clubs compete, and it is entirely free from taint of local favoritism, which so affects the choice of all major league newspapers.
Last year we chose Jake Daubert as the greatest first baseman not only in the league but in the game. A man so signally honored would naturally be the favorite on another occasion unless he had notably fallen away in his work or unless some other player had taken a decided brace. We find both such contingencies in evidence this season. Not only has Daubert fallen off greatly in the bat-ting which made him the star of the National League for two successive seasons, but several other first basemen have played with a speed and class far above their showing last year. This is particularly the case with Luderus of the Phillies, a man necessarily much in the public eye on account of the great showing of his club, Saier the brilliant first sacker of the Cubs, and Merkle of the lowly Giants, who although he has appeared often in the new role of an outfielder must perforce qualify rather as a first baseman.
The final figures are not yet available and we are aware that the records at our disposal must vary considerably from the corrected list given out from official sources later in the season. However, since they are the best figures we can get we must perforce use them and base our deductions on the records they furnish.
Merkle, though unfortunately attached to a club whose showing has been the joke or the despair of the season, has in no manner contributed to the all round collapse of the Giant machine. Though out of the game for a time through injuries, his playing has been essentially brilliant and he has hit for close to three hundred.
Schmidt of the Braves, whose record last year was so sensational, has slumped badly in batting.
To our mind, the best all round first baseman in the National League this season is Saier of the Cubs. Though apparently not so good a batter as Daubert, Saier has in reality been the more effective of the two. Daubert is essentially an infield hitter whose particular specialty is beating out short hits through his speed to first base. Contrast Daubert’s twenty two-base hits with Saier’s thirty-three, his two home runs with Saier’s eleven, and the case will appear more clearly. Saier has always been a slugging batter, a typical cleanup first base man of the ideal type. Daubert on the other hand is a man whose record rests upon lean singles with an occasional long hit made possible by his phenomenal speed. As a factor in the offensive strength of his club, Daubert has not this year been so effective as Saier. In fielding, there is little to choose between the two. Possibly Daubert has the greatest natural ability as a fielder and is undoubtedly one of the most graceful performers on the diamond. But Saier’s fielding has been no less effective and his work is the more aggressive of the two.
The margin which separates these two star first basemen of the National League is not great. But Daubert, already rich with honors, may yield the palm in a season which has not been his most successful to a formerly less fortunate rival.
Saier is a more valuable first baseman than Luderus of the Phillies, with all the latter’s great batting this season. Luderus, as a hitter, leaves little to be desired, but as a fielder he is not in a class with either Saier or Daubert.
At second base the batting of Larry Doyle has been so decisive as to leave little doubt of his choice for first honors. Doyle’s fielding has always been a trifle erratic, but his continual fusillade of two base hits covers a multitude of fielding omissions. John Evers, the man who undoubtedly led the field last year took part in little over half the games of the season and his record was so marred by frequent absences from the diamond and through general ill health, that he could hardly qualify as the star at his position.
Huggins of the Cardinals played a steady, brainy game. But Huggins has already passed the meridian of his greatest success as a player.
Cutshaw of Brooklyn was a good player, above the average, but Doyle’s preeminence is clearly marked.
Shortstop position is peculiarly rich in talent. Last season Maranville appeared above the horizon in a grand blaze which completely dimmed the exploits of the fading Wagner. Maranville is still one of the greatest fielding shortstops of many years, but it is a question if the feat which he himself performed has not been played against him by another newcomer on the field. Bancroft of the Phillies is undoubtedly the most sensational recruit of the season. It would not be fair to assert that his fielding was better than Maranville’s, for the Boston star carried this department of the game to the ultimate limit of human skill. But Bancroft was as good a fielder as Maranville and a better hitter. Among other things, seven home runs he contributed to his teammates loom up impressively, however they may have been affected by the meagre home field.
Bancroft and Maranville were the best shortstops of the season and of the two the shade of preference must go to Bancroft.
Manager Herzog of the Reds played his usual fast, brilliant and aggressive game. He stole a whole flock of bases. As manager, none could criticize him for taking chances and he performed most creditably in other departments of play. But Herzog never was and never will be a Bancroft or a Maranville.
At short Fletcher of the Giants played a very good game. In fact it is hard to see with the number of good players still on the roster how McGraw sunk so low in the race. In any case the lowly position of the club is in no sense the fault of the shortstop, even though Fletcher was hardly the equal of Bancroft on all round form.
Hans Wagner, the man who for years occupied the highest position in shortstop circles, with no close rivals, is still far from being a “has-been.” He played in many respects a remarkable game and his long hits were particularly useful to the Pirates. Neither time nor advancing age can rob the old man of his thirty-three two-base hits, his eighteen triples and six homes runs, but Wagner will be the last to deny the claim of youth as exemplified in Bancroft.
If shortstop is remarkably well stocked with stellar players, third base shows a corresponding poverty of talent. Amid the list of mediocre players and merely good performers who field the position at the third corner of the diamond, the name of Heinie Groh of Cincinnati is so far above all other competitors as to leave scant room for comparison. Groh batted for .289, and scored seventy-three runs, while among his one hundred and sixty-nine base hits were many doubles and triples. His fielding was also the best in the League.
Smith of Boston was second choice, but the margin between the two players is clear and decisive.
Lobert of the Giants, from whom much was expected, fell off badly in all round play.
The outfield situation in the National League is particularly complicated. We find here that those players who are naturally the best outfielders, with hardly an exception, failed to hit according to prevailing outfield standards, while the sluggers in almost every case were slow or inefficient fielders. Perhaps it is impossible to strike a balance between these two adverse talents, certainly not without making concessions to both.
Among batters whose work was spectacular for their slugging pure and simple, Cravath of the Phillies looms head and shoulders above the crowd. It will be a long day in baseball before the memory of his twenty-four home runs fades from view. Cravath, with all his great batting, was not even a three hundred hitter. But if his hits were fewer, as might have been the case, there is a convincing argument in his two hundred and sixty-nine total bases which needs no explanation. In the echo of these crashing hits all thought of Cravath’s slowness of foot and indifferent fielding is lost. But though much may be sacrificed to admit one slugger on a ball team, fielding ability is a requisite in most cases.
Cravath’s own teammate, Paskert, is one of the best fielders in the League, but for an all round performer of great speed, phenomenal fielding ability and at the same time great batting strength, Williams of Chicago is nearly ideal. National League players say that he covers more ground than any other man in the game and that some day he will be a second Ty Cobb. As a batter, though not hitting as frequently as could be hoped from one in his position, his long hits are impressive, particularly his fourteen home runs. In left field one will go very far to find a better performer than Wheat of Brooklyn. True, Wheat has fallen off considerably this season from his past year’s record, but so have most of the other outfielders, notably Burns of the Giants who stood so high last year. No criticism can be made of Wheat’s fielding. In action he is perhaps the most graceful fielder in the game and his hitting is of that slugging type which is so valuable an asset in the outfielder.
In selecting Cravath, Williams and Wheat, it has been necessary to overlook many stellar performers in one department or another of hitting or fielding. In such players as Griffith of Cincinnati, Hinchman of Pittsburgh and Long of the Cardinals, great batting is developed at the expense of fielding. While in such performers as Paskert, Leach and various other performers good fielding is coupled with weak hitting.
In the outfield we have selected there is but one man, Cravath, who is notably deficient in fielding, though the greatest slugger of the year, while Wheat and Williams, good natural batters, are brilliant fielders as well.
Snyder of St. Louis long since clinched his hold on first honors among National League catchers. A player of huge frame, great strength and endurance, a perfect mechanical performer and a tremendously heavy hitter, Snyder lacks but little in experience, which he is rapidly gaining, to become one of the greatest catchers the game has ever known.
Killefer of the Phillies is a fine catcher. He unites with mechanical gifts, shrewd judgment and good head work. Gibson, the veteran of the Pirates probably knows as much baseball as any other man now living, though he has passed his prime as a player.
The same is true of Bresnahan and his fellow teammate who was for years considered the greatest catcher in the game, Jimmy Archer. Archer still possesses his matchless throw to second base, but his many injuries have prevented him from competing on an equality with the burly youth of Synder.
Clarke of Cincinnati must not be omitted from mention of sterling catchers, but Clarke is hardly Snyder’s equal. The St. Louis player is alone in his class.
In considering the star pitchers of the National League the first thought is inevitably of Alexander. The Philadelphia star did not wholly achieve his ambition in the late World Series, but he clearly established his superiority over all other National League pitchers. Alexander is first choice and there is no possible doubt about his claim. The man who pitched more innings of baseball than any other player on the circuits, who among other things had twelve shutouts to his credit and who carried a club but little above second division calibre to victory on his single shoulders, is not only the greatest pitcher in the National League, but one of the greatest pitchers of all time.
There is no difference of opinion on Alexander, but there might be upon second choice. However, all things considered, we believe Mamaux, the phenomenal Pittsburgh star, is clearly entitled to a position close behind Alexander. Mamaux is a youngster, a recruit of the game, who has much to learn and he will constantly improve with reasonable good fortune. But he already possesses mechanical ability of the first order. This coupled with unusual ambition has made him the pitching sensation of the year.
Toney, of Cincinnati, has had a remarkable year. So has Vaughan, of the Cubs, and several other pitchers, but Alexander and Mamaux are the class of the season. One favorite who has long graced the list of all-star names will perhaps never again appear in that select circle. Mathewson may have a much better year next season than he had this, but apparently the day is gone when he can longer be counted upon as the Giants’ pitching staff. They all have their day, and Mathewson’s day, unusually long and brilliant, is drawing to a close.
The selection of the star first baseman in the National League required a considerable balance among the claims of contesting candidates. There is no such situation in the American League.
McInnis of the Athletics is the best first baseman in the American League and best by a margin which leaves no doubt as to his superiority. The melancholy position of the once World’s Champions has furnished few bright features, but one of them has been the sterling work of this last member of the hundred thousand dollar infield.
Fournier of Chicago, what time he played at first, outhit McInnis by a considerable margin, but Fournier possesses little of that scintilLating brilliancy at the position which has made McInnis an al-most unrivalled star.
The Red Sox were well represented by Gainor and Hoblitzel, both good per-formers.
Gandil of Washington can not be overlooked. And neither can Burns of Detroit.
But McInnis is still supreme at the position.
When Collins went from Philadelphia, it meant the transporting of the greatest second baseman in the American League to Comiskey Park. At second base Collins has no rivals.
His old teammate Barry, now that he has left short field, is indeed a close second to Collins as a fielder, but the latter is no less brilliant as a base runner and batter, while Barry falls down notably in comparison in these particulars.
The veteran Lajoie of Philadelphia is in precisely the same position as Hans Wagner of the National League. Still a wonderful player, still showing flashes of that form which once made him unrivaled, he has long since begun the inevitable decline which leads away from the diamond. And much of the season he has played at other positions.
Pratt of St. Louis is an unusually good performer, who would stand much higher in the running were it not for the overwhelming superiority of Collins.
At shortstop Owen Bush of Detroit is the one best bet. Bush is not the greatest hitter in the world, but he makes up for this defect through his extraordinary ability at securing through transportation to first. In fielding and base running, he has few equals at any position.
Chapman of Cleveland is a much underrated player. In happier surroundings, on a stronger team, he would no doubt show to even better advantage. As it was he proved himself a star on an all but starless club.
Scott on the Red Sox is a good fielder, but his hitting was woefully weak and in all round form he did not live up to the expectations of last year.
McBride at Washington, still brilliant, is growing old, while his hitting constantly declines.
At third base Maisel of New York is undoubtedly first choice. A good fielder, Maisel is one of the fastest men in the game and unlike other fast men he turns his speed to good account in base running. Second to Ty Cobb in number of stolen bases, a dangerous hitter with a tendency to extra base clouts, Maisel is the best performer at a position which offers few stars.
Gardner of the Red Sox has played a good game, a much better game than would appear at first sight. From the records he would probably be second choice, although Vitt of Detroit is a player who will bear a great deal of watching. Vitt is a good fielder and an extraordinarily aggressive base runner whose one hundred and sixteen runs can by no means be overlooked.
In the outfield the name of Cobb largely usurps honors. The Georgian started out with the evident ambition of breaking all existing records. If he had been given a little keener rivalry or if 1915 had not witnessed so much good pitching, he might have done so, but as it was he broke the modern base stealing record with ninety-four to his credit and played with a speed and dash in all departments which once again emphasizes the fact that he is without doubt the greatest player the game has ever known.
Speaker of the Red Sox again showed throughout the year his extraordinary talent as an outfielder. In this respect he is fairly unrivalled. This, coupled with his great batting, makes him next to Cobb the most valuable of outfielders.
Of the claims of Cobb and Speaker there can be no question. The title of the third man in the list is not so clear. Joe Jackson, one of the great natural outfielders in the game and a remarkable batter, had an off season. Through sickness and from one cause or another he did not shine as he has done in former years. All things considered, it is doubtful if a player more deserving of the honor can be found than Sam Crawford of Detroit. Crawford played as good a fielding game as he has ever done. He scored eighty-one runs and though doubtless helped by Cobb, stole twenty-five bases. But the main thing in his list of qualifications was his tremendously heavy batting. Crawford is the greatest cleanup hitter of the game, barring none.
Other players who press closely to the fore and fairly clamor for recognition are Veach, of Detroit; Lewis, of Boston; Milan, of Washington, and Shotton, of St. Louis, but no one of them, we believe, can quite overcome the claim of the man who for fifteen years has swung the heaviest bat and been the most dreaded slugger of the American League.
Among American League catchers, Schalk of Chicago, is clearly supreme. The margin which separates him from the nearest contestant is obvious and clearly defined. Schang of the Athletics, is a remarkable performer, but Schalk outdid him this season by many points.
Stanage of Detroit, a veteran catcher, is still great.
Carrigan of the Red Sox, for his shrewd judgment and the remarkable pitching staff he has built up, must certainly be given due credit.
But in his case the fame of the player is swallowed up in the fame of the manager.
Walter Johnson had to perform a prodigious amount of work and face a good number of defeats through the fault of his teammates before he was able to win more victories than any other man in the American League. But he did reach that position, and once more demonstrated that he is the Alexander of the American League or that the latter is worthy to be called the Johnson of the National League, whichever you choose. Johnson is still the greatest pitcher in the American League, and his claims are undisputed by all other pitchers of that organization.
As in the case of the National, second choice is far more difficult than first. Scott of the White Sox, and his fellow teammate Faber, are well to the front. So also is that redoutable trio, Foster, Shore, and Leonard of the Red Sox.
Dauss of Detroit, must not be overlooked, and neither should some of the pitchers on losing clubs, notably Caldwell of the Yankees and Morton of Cleveland.
From a group of stellar performers so closely bunched as this, it it an all but impossible task to select the best. No doubt the mind will revert at once to the claims of Foster, Shore and Leonard whose stellar work needs no comment here. But the task of selecting the greatest twirler from this trio is purely a matter of opinion. We have asked this question of not less than twenty-five American League stars and the votes have been almost equally divided among the three. If Carrigan had had less pitching talent, no doubt the comparative ability of his three stars would have been brought out more clearly.
As things are, however, rather than to attempt to cut the gordian knot of this almost impossible tangle, we will rather prefer the claims of Scott of the White Sox. This pitcher is unquestionably one of the stars of the game. He took part in forty-nine contests and won twenty-five of them, more victories than any other man, save Johnson and Dauss. His winning percentage is six hundred and ninety-four and of his ability as a pitcher, it is only necessary to inquire from any batter on the circuits who faces his deadly curve.
In preferring McInnis to Saier for the greatest first baseman of the year, we are well aware that we are choosing a man of the Jake Daubert type. McInnis has never been noted for his long hits. He is not a cleanup slugger like the Cub player. But the man who hit for an average of three hundred and fifteen in this year of lean batting averages, needs no excuse on the score of batting.
McInnis is still one of the hundred thousand dollar infield who has fallen off no particle in his phenomenal play. Daubert it must be remembered has slumped and slumped considerably to lose the crown, but McInnis has not done so. Furthermore his fielding is one of the classics of the diamond. It is but one point short of perfection. McInnis at first, is a greater star than Saier.
At second base Collins outhit Doyle by more than twenty points, scored over thirty runs more than the Giant, while in fielding we will assume there was not much comparison. Collins can play rings around Doyle the best day the latter ever saw and as his supremacy is equally clear in batting and base running, there can not be much doubt in anyone’s mind that Collins is the greatest second baseman of the year.
At shortstop Bancroft considerably outhit Bush, and though it may be hard for purely American League followers to see it, we believe he has somewhat outfielded him as well. Bush is a great run getter, but Bancroft is decidedly good in this respect and as shortstops after all are not paid primarily to score runs but rather to keep the enemy from doing so, Bancroft has first choice.
At third base there is a remarkably close balance between Maisel of the Highlanders and Groh of Cincinnati. In fielding, if there is any preference, it must go to Groh. He is one of the prettiest defensive players in the game. In all round speed Maisel is clearly superior and has shone particularly in stolen bases. In hitting, however, Groh has a considerable advantage. This margin is not confined merely to the fifteen points with which he outhit his rival, but also to long hits as well and although not so fast as Maisel and in addition occupying a place on a club which has been near the bottom of the ladder all the season, Groh has scored nearly as many runs as his rival.
We believe that during the present season Groh has been the more experienced, better rounded performer and while the difference is by no means so clear as at second base or even at shortstop, such slight advantage as exists proclaims Groh the premier performer at third base.
In the outfield Cobb must be given a place without a dissenting vote. An equally brief canvass will elect Speaker to first honors. But mention of Crawford brings up visions of Cravath. Cravath would be elected by perhaps three out of four observers. First, because he is a member of a winning club and second, from the respect that is given his twenty-four home runs. The balance is indeed finely drawn between these two performers, but we believe a careful analysis of the figures will give the preference on several accounts to Crawford.
In the first place Crawford is an all round star of fifteen years’ standing. Cravath has never been a star save for his great hitting and even that is largely due to the extraordinary limited playing field upon which most of those twenty-four home runs were made. I talked to Cravath on this point in Boston and he admitted that to the best of his knowledge but five of these home runs were made on alien territory.
Glance for a moment at the figures. While Cravath has made twenty-four home runs, he has made but six triples. These figures are significant. Most of the home runs of Cravath were clearly the result of the encroaching fences of the outfield.
Crawford, on the other hand, while he has made but five home runs (but one American Leaguer has made more) has twenty three-base hits to his credit. Crawford, though faster than Cravath, is no longer fleet of foot and when Crawford makes a three base hit, depend upon it, it is a three-base hit.
Crawford leads every man in the American League in three baggers just as Cravath does in home runs and if anyone wants to bet that Crawford’s three base hits were not as long on the average as Cravath’s home runs, he will get plenty of takers in the American League.
Crawford is without doubt the greatest cleanup batter in either circuit and unlike many great batters, he is particularly formidable in the pinch. Christy Mathewson, who has spent his life in the National League, and might most naturally prefer the batters in that circuit, once told me that Crawford was the hardest hitter he ever faced. There is a profound unanimity of opinion on this point among American League pitchers. Furthermore, Crawford is a true three hundred hitter. His final average may fall a shade below that figure this year though not much. Cravath is not a true three hundred hitter and has passed that mark but once in his Major League career.
With the utmost respect for Cravath’s great showing, we are nevertheless led by a survey of all the facts to prefer Crawford.
The pitching situation is easy. Alexander and Johnson are the selection without a dissenting vote. Two stars, each unrivalled in his League, each superior to any other pitcher who could be brought against him.
The National League has had the best catchers in the game for some years and though the passing of Archer and the rise of Schalk give the American League a grand opportunity, it is impossible to overlook the claims of Snyder. Snyder worked in one hundred and forty-four contests. He batted for an even three hundred. He is acknowledged to be one of the greatest mechanical catchers the circuits have ever seen. If Schalk with all his great ability can equal Snyder it is due to some nicety of judgment or some mastery of baseball knowledge which does not appear in the records. From the story the figures tell us, and from the view of both men in action, we must prefer Snyder.
“It is a great thing to choose a team made up of the leading stars in the game,” said President Tener of the National League recently. “And yet a team of dubs might go out and defeat them.”
Perhaps. All things are possible in baseball. And yet, we would give considerably more than the price of a bleacher seat to see the team of dubs or of any other players who could go out and defeat this team.
Better than a World Series? was originally published in Our Game on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.