Early Baseball and the Rise of the National League

Rating:
Summary: missing the woods for the trees
Review: Mr. Hershberger's comments are fairly typical of the old
"statistics and scores" outlook in baseball history that Mr. Melville's book tries to overcome. Although Mr.
Melville's thesis is, in fact, one of the more refreshing
new analyses that's come along in recent history, Mr.
Hershberger lets himself get lost in trivial points. He seems
to claim Mr. Melville's concept of "achievement" is the same
as "winning is everything" just with a "slightly different
emphasis" even though Mr. Melville, on p.4, specifically explains
how this is not the case. As for his charge that he "belittles"
other scholars, noting the reference to Mr. Goldstein, he
neglects to mention Mr. Melville's entire book was inspired by
the work of Eric Leiffer, or that he praises Goldstein
(p. 147, note 30) as being one of the few scholars to downplay
Robert Ferguson's importance as the American Association
president. As for the quibble over the income figures;
well, when he said Boston took in an "unprecedented" $31,000
in 1874 I read that to mean unprecedented FOR BOSTON, not the
American Association. As to his claim that the number of games
the National League lost to outside clubs is insignificant; well, if the reader has read the book carefully, I think he will indeed find it significant that the National Leauge, from 1878 to
1880, when it was playing many more games against stronger International League clubs than it was in 1876, was showing
fewer losses. It's a pity Mr. Hershberger gets bogged down in
this trivia and says nothing about such things as Mr. Melville's
unprecedented insight into the dealings of William Hulbert or
his analysis of professionalism as a crisis in localism. This is
a book that challenges every stereotype of American baseball
history and readers raised on these stereotypes are usually in a poor position to recognize this.

Rating:
Summary: missing the woods for the trees
Review: Mr. Hershberger's comments are fairly typical of the old
"statistics and scores" outlook in baseball history that Mr. Melville's book tries to overcome. Although Mr.
Melville's thesis is, in fact, one of the more refreshing
new analyses that's come along in recent history, Mr.
Hershberger lets himself get lost in trivial points. He seems
to claim Mr. Melville's concept of "achievement" is the same
as "winning is everything" just with a "slightly different
emphasis" even though Mr. Melville, on p.4, specifically explains
how this is not the case. As for his charge that he "belittles"
other scholars, noting the reference to Mr. Goldstein, he
neglects to mention Mr. Melville's entire book was inspired by
the work of Eric Leiffer, or that he praises Goldstein
(p. 147, note 30) as being one of the few scholars to downplay
Robert Ferguson's importance as the American Association
president. As for the quibble over the income figures;
well, when he said Boston took in an "unprecedented" $31,000
in 1874 I read that to mean unprecedented FOR BOSTON, not the
American Association. As to his claim that the number of games
the National League lost to outside clubs is insignificant; well, if the reader has read the book carefully, I think he will indeed find it significant that the National Leauge, from 1878 to
1880, when it was playing many more games against stronger International League clubs than it was in 1876, was showing
fewer losses. It's a pity Mr. Hershberger gets bogged down in
this trivia and says nothing about such things as Mr. Melville's
unprecedented insight into the dealings of William Hulbert or
his analysis of professionalism as a crisis in localism. This is
a book that challenges every stereotype of American baseball
history and readers raised on these stereotypes are usually in a poor position to recognize this.

Rating:
Summary: We can do better.
Review: This book covers a period of baseball--the formation and establishment of the National League--which is oddly neglected in most works on the early game. There are some outstanding works on the creation of the game and its rise to national popularity, but how the modern organization arose has had largely cursory treatment. So Melville's book is a welcome addition. He not only contributes a chronology of events but he has some interesting ideas on the underlying forces influencing events. An example of this is his pointing out the systemic tension in the old National Association between the western clubs, particularly Chicago, and the eastern clubs. This makes it clear that it is not merely happinstance that the driving force behind the formation of the National League was from Chicago.

I give only three stars for two reasons. The first is that Melville is annoying. A leitmotif of the book is that he has far more and far deeper insights than any writer before him. Even were this true, the constant reminders would be unbecoming. But even when he is right he isn't as original as he would like us to believe. For example, an explicit major theme is "achievement," which is simply to say the striving to win, both on the level of individual games and for the pennant. This is a legitimate theme in the study of early baseball, as baseball started out as a social activity and evolved into professional competition. In fact, the subject is routinely discussed in studies of early baseball. Melville seems to think that he is the first writer to discuss this. At most all he has done is to approach the subject with a slightly different emphasis.

He also belittles other writers, often through the back-handed compliment. Here is a typical example: he discusses Warren Goldstein's "otherwise thoughtful" book "Playing for Keeps" and how Goldstein can't understand how an amateur club like that of Easton, Pennsylvania in the early 1870's could be as good as it was, holding its own against professional teams. Melville's answer is that Easton's amateur status

"didn't in any way mean they wouldn't apply all the competitive resources (training, strategy, etc.) utilyzed by professionals. The Easton club didn't differ from professionals because they represented a lower achievement level, generally assumed for those who didn't play for compensation, but beccause they freely and voluntarily choose [sic] to compete on their own, something not available to professionals who were contractually, and therefore unconditionally, obliged to win. This is a subtle, intangible difference, yet one necessary to those who would know how a society values competitive purpose."

While this subtle difference is all very nice, what Goldstein actually pointed out was that the Easton club played a schedule which was incompatible with its members working full time jobs, and that the members were not of an economic class which could simply take the summer off from work. The suspicion, therefore, is that their amateur condition was not entirely pure.

The second, and more serious, problem with this book is that Melville is sloppy with the facts. Here are two examples. In a section discussing how some clubs did very well financially, we are told that in 1874 the Boston Red Stockings took in "an unprecedented" $31,000. On the previous page, though, he wrote about the poor magagement of the Philadelphia Athletics and how they "couldn't even turn a profit during their championship year despite total revenues reportedly in excess of $50,000." The Athletics' championship year was 1871, so either the numbers are wrong or the Red Stockings' take of 1874 wasn't unprecedented. Perhaps the use of the word "reportedly" is meant to hint that we shouldn't take the $50,000 number seriously, but if so then why repeat the rumor? The number proves nothing about the management of the team if it isn't true. One is left wondering whether this is authorial sleight of hand or incompetence.

The second example is from a discussion of just how good the National League teams were in the early years compared to non-League teams. The author points out that in 1876, the League's first year, League teams lost 37 games against non-League teams. He presents this as evidence of League weakness: "Though the National Leagues' eight stock clubs claimed to represent baseball's highest competitive echelon, their competitive record against non-National League clubs...raised serious doubts about this." 27 pages later he discusses the strengthened position of the National League, citing only 34 losses against non-League teams in 1878 and 31 in 1880: "the National League was able to firmly solidify its position of competitive superiority." While my first thought was to wonder about the significance of this fairly modest change, my second was to realize that in no case were we told the total number of games played. He is using blatantly meaningless numbers to try and prove his point.

All in all this book comes across as a promising draft for a graduate thesis. In the hands of a good thesis advisor it could be shipped into shape. A good editor could have done the same thing, but alas this book is clearly an example of unedited prose. (I haven't discussed the painfully obvious absence of copy editing.) So who, if anyone, should buy this? The person who is particularly interested in early baseball and is putting together a comprehensive library on the subject. The book has enough to say which is of interest as to merit inclusion. Anyone with merely a passing interest, or smaller collecting asperations, can do much better elsewhere. A good place to start is Warren Goldstein's book mentioned earlier. It in fact started life as a graduate thesis, complete with advisor, and is a much better book.

Rating:
Summary: We can do better.
Review: This book covers a period of baseball--the formation and establishment of the National League--which is oddly neglected in most works on the early game. There are some outstanding works on the creation of the game and its rise to national popularity, but how the modern organization arose has had largely cursory treatment. So Melville's book is a welcome addition. He not only contributes a chronology of events but he has some interesting ideas on the underlying forces influencing events. An example of this is his pointing out the systemic tension in the old National Association between the western clubs, particularly Chicago, and the eastern clubs. This makes it clear that it is not merely happinstance that the driving force behind the formation of the National League was from Chicago.

I give only three stars for two reasons. The first is that Melville is annoying. A leitmotif of the book is that he has far more and far deeper insights than any writer before him. Even were this true, the constant reminders would be unbecoming. But even when he is right he isn't as original as he would like us to believe. For example, an explicit major theme is "achievement," which is simply to say the striving to win, both on the level of individual games and for the pennant. This is a legitimate theme in the study of early baseball, as baseball started out as a social activity and evolved into professional competition. In fact, the subject is routinely discussed in studies of early baseball. Melville seems to think that he is the first writer to discuss this. At most all he has done is to approach the subject with a slightly different emphasis.

He also belittles other writers, often through the back-handed compliment. Here is a typical example: he discusses Warren Goldstein's "otherwise thoughtful" book "Playing for Keeps" and how Goldstein can't understand how an amateur club like that of Easton, Pennsylvania in the early 1870's could be as good as it was, holding its own against professional teams. Melville's answer is that Easton's amateur status

"didn't in any way mean they wouldn't apply all the competitive resources (training, strategy, etc.) utilyzed by professionals. The Easton club didn't differ from professionals because they represented a lower achievement level, generally assumed for those who didn't play for compensation, but beccause they freely and voluntarily choose [sic] to compete on their own, something not available to professionals who were contractually, and therefore unconditionally, obliged to win. This is a subtle, intangible difference, yet one necessary to those who would know how a society values competitive purpose."

While this subtle difference is all very nice, what Goldstein actually pointed out was that the Easton club played a schedule which was incompatible with its members working full time jobs, and that the members were not of an economic class which could simply take the summer off from work. The suspicion, therefore, is that their amateur condition was not entirely pure.

The second, and more serious, problem with this book is that Melville is sloppy with the facts. Here are two examples. In a section discussing how some clubs did very well financially, we are told that in 1874 the Boston Red Stockings took in "an unprecedented" $31,000. On the previous page, though, he wrote about the poor magagement of the Philadelphia Athletics and how they "couldn't even turn a profit during their championship year despite total revenues reportedly in excess of $50,000." The Athletics' championship year was 1871, so either the numbers are wrong or the Red Stockings' take of 1874 wasn't unprecedented. Perhaps the use of the word "reportedly" is meant to hint that we shouldn't take the $50,000 number seriously, but if so then why repeat the rumor? The number proves nothing about the management of the team if it isn't true. One is left wondering whether this is authorial sleight of hand or incompetence.

The second example is from a discussion of just how good the National League teams were in the early years compared to non-League teams. The author points out that in 1876, the League's first year, League teams lost 37 games against non-League teams. He presents this as evidence of League weakness: "Though the National Leagues' eight stock clubs claimed to represent baseball's highest competitive echelon, their competitive record against non-National League clubs...raised serious doubts about this." 27 pages later he discusses the strengthened position of the National League, citing only 34 losses against non-League teams in 1878 and 31 in 1880: "the National League was able to firmly solidify its position of competitive superiority." While my first thought was to wonder about the significance of this fairly modest change, my second was to realize that in no case were we told the total number of games played. He is using blatantly meaningless numbers to try and prove his point.

All in all this book comes across as a promising draft for a graduate thesis. In the hands of a good thesis advisor it could be shipped into shape. A good editor could have done the same thing, but alas this book is clearly an example of unedited prose. (I haven't discussed the painfully obvious absence of copy editing.) So who, if anyone, should buy this? The person who is particularly interested in early baseball and is putting together a comprehensive library on the subject. The book has enough to say which is of interest as to merit inclusion. Anyone with merely a passing interest, or smaller collecting asperations, can do much better elsewhere. A good place to start is Warren Goldstein's book mentioned earlier. It in fact started life as a graduate thesis, complete with advisor, and is a much better book.