My Worst Blunder
Famous Bonehead Plays on Major League Diamonds
Explained by Leading Baseball Players to
Hugh S. Fullerton
Ed Konetchy
First Baseman, St. Louis Cardinals,
who is considered by many experts as the Best First Baseman in the Game Today.
You may think it odd, but the fact is that I won a ball game with what I think was the worst mistake I ever made. Maybe I wouldn’t admit that if it had lost the game, except to fellows I know well enough, but it was. Lots of times I read how someone makes a boneheaded play when I know it was a good play, and lots of times I read about them making good plays that are good plays only because they got away with them. Any play is a good play as long as it is a help toward winning a game, and any play is a rotten play if it loses a ball game. The fans want to win, and if you win they don’t care for the science of it. I’ll let them call me a bone head every day if we can win ball games by it.
We were playing the Chicago club early in 1911, and fighting them off their feet in the series. It was a fierce fight all the way, as every game of the series was, and the score was close when we came down to the end. We were tied, and neither had scored many runs, but late in the game Chicago got a runner to second base with one out, and we were battling to keep them from scoring the winning run. Hofman was at bat and I was watching closely to see what our pitcher was handing up to him, and playing a little bit closer to the bag than usual because of Hofman’s speed in coming down to first. He hit the ball a mile a minute, almost over the corner of the base, and as I saw it coming I knew it was up to me to stop that ball or the game was gone. It didn’t look as if anyone had a chance to reach the ball, but I jumped over and made a slap at it with my mitt. The ball jumped up just in time to hit the edge of the mitt hard, and I knew I had blocked its force and that it was only a base hit instead of the triple it would have been had it passed the mitt. I really didn’t know where the ball was, but saw it rolling slowly back of me into right field.
That far I had made a nice play and a lucky stop. I jumped after the ball, and in doing so I must have lost my head. I knew the runner was certain to beat the ball to first. He was ahead of Sallee, who was coming over to cover first, when I picked up the ball, and there wasn’t a chance to catch him. My play, without doubt, was to get that ball back to the plate to prevent the runner from second trying to score, and if I could hold him at third, which ought to have been easy, we still would have a chance to cut off the runner at the plate or try for a double play. I was so anxious and rattled that I leaped on the ball and cut loose at full speed to first. Sallee was covering as fast as he could, but the way I threw he couldn’t have caught the ball any more than he could catch a cannon ball. The ball went past him like a flash, struck the dirt, bounded straight into the catcher’s hands, and the runner who was trying to score from second was out by ten feet at the plate.
It took us a long time to win that game. We tied in eleven innings that day, tied when we tried to play it off, and we finally won it in late September.
(Copyright, 1912, by W. G. Chapman.)
I used to like to do "Tracers" in some of my old books, in which I would pick up an old story like this and try to backtrack and find the original facts. Since I saw this story about a game in 1911 and Retrosheet has good accounts of the 1911 season available now, I thought I would try to see if I could find the exact game in which this "accidental" good play occurred.
We have lots of facts to deal with here; the year is given, the time of the year (early in the season), details about the game, the hitter, the inning, the pitcher. . .there’s a lot to work with there. To jump to the conclusion, because I don’t know how else I would do this, it does not appear that there is any series of events that is a close match for Konetchy’s account of them. I don’t doubt that some play very much like this did occur somewhere, sometime, but Konetchy has pretty clearly made one story out of several memorable but unrelated incidents.
Saying "we tied in eleven innings that day," is pretty clearly a reference to the game of April 12, 1911, which was opening day of the season at the West Side Grounds. The Cubs and Cardinals did play to an eleven-inning tie on that date, and Sallee did pitch. It matches Konetchy’s description of "early in the season"; you can’t get any earlier in the season than opening day.
However, at least according to the Retrosheet account, there was no play in the game which bears substantial similarities to the play described by Konetchy. Solly Hofman did play in the game, but went 0-for-5 and did not reach base. Konetchy did throw out a runner at home plate in that game, but it was on a relay throw from the outfield, early in the game, and Sallee would not have been covering first on the play.
Konetchy says that when they tried to re-play the game it ended in another tie. The Cubs and Cardinals did play another game later in the series (April 15) which, again, ended in a tie. This could have been a make-up game for the earlier tie; I don’t know. But again, there was no play in that game that accords with Konetchy’s account. Sallee did not appear in that game, Hofman did not get a hit, and Konetchy did not have an assist, did not throw out a runner at the plate or at any other base. There just isn’t anything in the play-by-play for either game that could be mistaken for Konetchy’s story.
As to Konetchy’s memory that the Cardinals won the game on the second makeup try. …well, if you say so. The Cardinals didn’t play in Chicago again after that game until mid-August, played three games in Chicago in mid-August but lost them all. They were back in Chicago from September 3 to September 6—not "late" September, but it was at least September—and played six games against Chicago in four days, of which we would assume that two were makeup games for the games in the first series which had ended in a tie. However, the Cubs won four of the six games, and the Cubs won both second games of double headers, which would be the most likely makeup games under the re-scheduling rules that I am familiar with. However, some re-scheduling practices at that time may have been radically different, so I wouldn’t place much faith in my assumptions about that.
Again, there does not appear to be any event in this six-game series which is a good match for Konetchy’s memory. Sallee was injured, and did not appear in the series. In the first game Retrosheet has no play by play, but Konetchy did not have an assist, and Hofman does not appear likely to have batted with anyone on base at any point in the game.
The second game—again no play by play—Konetchy did not have an assist, and the Cubs lost.
In the third game we have play by play, and there is no event even broadly comparable to Konetchy’s story.
In the fourth game we have no play by play, but
a) the Cubs won,
b) Hofman didn’t have a hit, and
c) Konetchy didn’t have an assist.
If the fifth game we have play by play, and there is, again, no similar event.
In the sixth game we have play by play. The Cubs won the game 9 to 0, and there is nothing in the game that resembles Konetchy’s story.
Again, I don’t question that something like this happened, sometime, somewhere. But it does not appear to have occurred where and when Konetchy remembers it as happening, which is 1911 against Chicago. I also checked the St. Louis/Chicago games that were played in St. Louis. Nothing.
Since I’m here, I’ll mention some other stuff about Konetchy that I found while trying to track this down. First, there is a story told repeatedly about Konetchy’s entry into minor league baseball. The essence of the story is that Konetchy attended a game as a fan, and was pressed into service by the home team because of an injury. He played so well that the manager told him to report for practice the next day, but Konetchy responded that he couldn’t do it. He was being paid $12 a week to work in a candy store, and he didn’t want to give up the job. The manager contacted the candy store owner, and arranged to "borrow" Big Ed on a regular basis.
Second, there are constant references to Konetchy’s ability in the field, and one or two comparisons of Konetchy to Hal Chase, who was of course the standard of fielding excellence at first base in that era.
Third, I found an account of a double play that Konetchy was involved in against the New York Giants in 1910, that went 3-2-3-2. With the bases loaded and Red Ames batting, Ames hit the ball to Konetchy, who fired home for the forceout. The catcher threw back to first, trying to make a 3-2-3 double play, but the throw to first was too late. The runner from second, however, rounded third and headed for home; Konetchy threw back to the plate, and was credited with both assists on a double play.
Fourth, Konetchy was a bit of a character, and there are quite a few human interest stories about him. My favorite involves a vaudeville house that Konetchy owned in St. Louis, which he personally managed during the off season. One time he hired a three-person act, but the act was terrible, and after a few days he called them into his office and told them he was going to have to put them on waivers. It’s a joke, you see; you ask waivers on a baseball player when he is being given his release. There weren’t any "waivers" in vaudeville.
The other thing that strikes me about this anecdote (told to Fullerton) is how clean and modern the language is. A lot of the sports writing of 1911 is convoluted, and uses stilted, archaic jargon. This is so natural-sounding that the only thing that jars you is the use of the term "mitts"; we still occasionally describe a first baseman’s glove as a "mitt", but in the context above, a player today would just say "glove", not "mitt". Otherwise. ..it sounds about the same.
Submitted For Your Consideration
Perhaps the most remarkable catch made anywhere during the season of 1910 was made by Carlisle of the Vernon team of the Pacific coast league on the San Francisco grounds early in
October. The catch was made possible because it started in a joking tribute by Carlisle to the hitting prowess of "Ping" Bodie, the slugging outfielder of the Frisco team, who came near breaking world's records for home run hits during the season.
The San Francisco grounds are situated low, and surrounded by great fences, some of them as tall as the three-story houses that adjoin the park. At points the fences are nearly fifty feet high, yet Bodie kept driving the ball over fences, signs and high screens until it got to be a regular thing and a source of joking among the fans and players alike. The Vernon team came down from the north with the Frisco team, and they stopped to play a series on the Mission street grounds. It happened that while the team was away painters had been putting some new lettering on signs high above the fence, and one tall ladder remained propped against the fence in right center field. The ladder was left there, and after Vernon had batted and failed to score, Carlisle, jogging out to his position, saw the ladder, and thought of a joke. Two were out when "Ping," the hero of Frisco, came to bat. Carlisle jogged back to the fence and, climbing about twenty feet up the ladder, turned his face toward the field. The bleacher crowd appreciated his tribute to Bodie's hitting power and laughed and cheered, and the crowd in the stands took up the applause. Bodie swung wickedly upon the first ball pitched. Carlisle, thinking he had carried the joke far enough, was descending the ladder, when he saw the ball coming toward the fence, far above his head. He turned, scrambled ten feet up the ladder, clung to a round with one hand and, stretching out the other, caught the ball. The catch caused a long argument, but it was allowed and then the umpire stopped the game until the ladder was removed.
(Copyright, 2011, by Joseph E. Bowles.)
(It sounds like a true story to me. Ping Bodie hit 30 home runs for the San Francisco Seals in 1910. A typical league-leading figure in that era was more like 12 to 15.)
Further Proof that Bill is Losing His Marbles
Am I the only one who ever notices this. …if you want cheddar cheese that has a good, strong flavor, you have to buy the one marked "mild". For some reason. .. .not just one brand. ..if you buy the cheddar cheese marked "sharp" or "extra sharp", it is almost tasteless, whereas if you buy the cheese that is marked "mild", it has a much stronger taste. I’ve never been able to figure that out, and I keep buying the "sharp" cheddar, because I like a stronger taste and I keep expecting the world to make sense, but then it never does. Doesn’t anybody else ever notice this?
And, if you need FURTHER evidence. . ..
As you get older, one of the things that happens to you is that all kinds of things that seem annoying or offensive become commonplace, apparently because younger people aren’t sufficiently offended by them, while all kinds of things that don’t seem to me to be at all offensive are suddenly labeled as offensive and written outside the rules, for reasons that frankly mystify us old folk.
I’m not talking about vulgarity on TV or anything; heck, I’m used to that. I’m talking about going to the grocery store, and being expected to scan your own groceries and check yourself out. Am I the only one who doesn’t want to scan my own groceries? Am I the only one who feels like I am certain to screw something up and be arrested on the way out of the store for not paying for my Lucky Charms and cheddar cheese?
I guess it’s the modern world; nothing I can do about it. One of the differences between living in the Midwest and living on the east coast, by the way, is that we have vastly better supermarkets in the Midwest. I would imagine that those of you who have lived your whole life on the east coast have no idea what I am talking about and don’t believe me. We have better stores, but it’s just a trend; if you go grocery shopping late at night, some stores don’t staff the checkout counters.
On the "stuff that has inexplicably become intolerable" side, I read about some poor woman in Connecticut who had a job reviewing college-application essays, and was fired for mocking some of the essays on Facebook. Somebody wrote in a college-application essay about going camping and having to overcome their fear of urinating in the outdoors, and she was making fun of him for choosing to write about this in a college admissions essay.
Well…what’s wrong with that? I mean, it’s not like she mentioned his name or made fun of him in person or anything. Isn’t this more rationally regarded as a contribution toward educating kids about the process? My point is that by firing her for discussing this in public, the university is inhibiting the free flow of information which is potentially valuable to kids who are trying to figure out how to write a college admissions essay. If you’re writing a college admissions essay and you are considering whether you should write about learning to urinate outdoors, isn’t it better that you know that this is an asinine idea and that the woman who reviews the essay is going to throw your application in the trash barrel and make fun of you, rather than being allowed to imagine that whatever the hell comes into your head is an OK thing to write about? I mean, society tolerates that kind of thing, the next thing you know you’ll have professional writers writing about buying cheddar cheese.
The one that really gets me, though, is this "scandal" about college basketball coaches pushing one of their players in the chest or slapping one of their players in the chest. You’re kidding, right? Do basketball players break that easily these days?
I’m not saying that in my day the coaches would kick you in the butt or anything, although, now that you mention it, in my day the coaches would kick you in the butt just to get your attention. But how can a level of contact that is one-fortieth the force which is commonplace in the game be considered horribly offensive if it occurs on the sidelines of the game, between friends? It doesn’t seem to make any sense.
Football coaches are fired for screaming at their players? Really? Why? I mean. ..they get IN the game and beat hell out of each other. Why is it offensive, all of a sudden, if a football coach grabs one of his charges by the front of the shirt and tells him to pull his head out of his ass? I know I’m old and irrelevant, but. ..I don’t get it.