OCR Text |
Show '! FRANK BAKER. BY BELLY MURPHY. t Did you ever sit in the grand stand ter bieachere and keep a close eye (j on a leading batter at work on a cub f ( pitcher? If you never have, just take the first opportunity when the season opens and keep an eye on the way one of the "million-dollar Infield" stars of the Philadelphia Athletics go after a youngster. y Its worth going & long ways to The recruit may have the proverbial pro-verbial "everything," meaning speed to waste, curves that break like a rotten stick, and control enough to stick the ball in the big mitt every c time. In practice, the cub has looked like a sensation and everyone but I the manager Is sure he Is going to be k s big league wonder Just as sure as the tax assessor will make his ap pearance. Frank Baker, Eddie Collins, "Stuffy" Mclnnls, or Jack Barry It doesn't make any difference which eomes to the plate as careless as the office boy half an hour late. He expectorates upon his hands, rubs his bat handle, pulls down his cap, rubs hie hands In the dust, knocks the dirt off his 6plkes. gives his trousers a hitch, and then wipes his hands upon his trousers' legs. Th catcher signals. Perhaps he calls for a fast one over the Inside rK corner and about knee high. What does the cub do? Well, the chances arc that he'll Put it right where the backstop ordered or-dered It. But the next thing he'll see will be. that ball sailing a mile away and one of the "million dollar Infield" Scampering around the bases. The wonder of baseball is that Infield, In-field, Some enthusiasts hav even gone so far as to declare it the greatest Infield collection of baseball history. Perhaps it is. There is no denying the fact that the inner defense of Connie Mack's pennant trust is of sufficient class to suit the fancy of the most discerning discern-ing public. Undoubtedly the great Athletic Four overtop anything in the game at present for all-around efficiency. To say, however, that they are the greatest the game has ever known is making a very strong statement, and one that, though hard to refute, is open to widespread argument. c03iparing athletics With other infields. The entire Athletic- infield is not ) likely to pass out for some years. - But pass It must with time, and - " then whatever infield happens to possess tho most class of that future period when Mclnnls, Collins, Barry and Baker are no more, will undoubtedly un-doubtedly be awarded the pedestal, above the sacred memory of the fallen kings. Sport Is after all, a law unto itself. it-self. Sentiment figures not the least. The great following lives In the. present, leaving the dead past to the memories of Its declining veterans. veter-ans. To begin with, there Is absolutely HO manner in which Just comparisons compari-sons between past and present can be made. Baseball has progressed. Its evolution evo-lution has entailed many changes In very phase of the game. The ball Itself is not constructed exactly tho Same. Present-day players have an equipment of artificial aids undreamed un-dreamed of in the days of a number of the old-timers still with ue. It is as idle to make comparisons between the past and present of baseball, as It would be in any line of sport or life or work. It Is easy enough to say that John L. Sullivan in his prime would have knocked the everlasting whey out of Jack Johnson as ho stood the day he conquered Jeffries. Whether he could or not furnishes a fine subject for debate. But how prove anything? Unfortunately Unfor-tunately Sullivan and Johnson were of different periods. The only possible manner in which the Athletics' quartet might gain such distinction as some admirers ad-mirers would thrust upon It, would be for It to maintain its dignity on the field of action against the classy aggregations of the past. That, of course, is somewhat impracticable. im-practicable. But for a little argument We do not have to turn back history's pages very far to get an Infield that would compare favorably with that of the present Philadelphia club. How about tho old Cub machine Chance, Evers, Tinker and Steln-feldt? Steln-feldt? Eight years ago it was heralded as the greatest defensive machine of all history, just as some other collection col-lection will be hailed eight years hence. There are some very astute baseball base-ball people who do not believe that the Athletics' Infield Is greater than that of the famous Chicago machine. ma-chine. But a fair opinion seems to bo that the men of Mack have greater hitting power, more speed than did the Chanceites, are less flashy perhaps per-haps in the field, but every bit as strong defensively. M'GRAW GREAT ADMIRER OF C. MACK'S QU YRTETTE. John J. McGraw Is a great admirer admir-er of the Athletics. He Is broad-inlndcd broad-inlndcd enough to realize that true comparison Is out of tho question, save, perhaps with tho Cubs. McGraw's opinion has not changed since the world's sorjea of 1913. Shortly after the final game he was loud in his praise of his conquerors. "I do not know whether the Athletics' Ath-letics' Infield plays above Its true form in series' with us," said McGraw, Mc-Graw, but in 1911 and in 191.'.. It proved to bo one of tho most wonderful won-derful collections I have over seen. "I will go so far as to say that in my opinion, Collins and Barry form tho greatest defenslvo pair I have ever seen around second. They are so fast that you cannot cross them on tho hit and run play. EDDIE COLLINS. Neither starts to cover until tho ball Is hit." In the olden days, Detroit, with Dan Brouthers on first, Richardson at second. Rowe at hort and White at third, formed a wonderful hitting quartette. Brouthers was even a greater slugger than "Stuffy" Mclnnls; Richardson was a harder hitler than Collins, although no more sure; Rowe slammed the ball harder than Barfy, while White as a batter could not compare with Frank Baker. In the field th teams averaged about tho same on the defensive, but it must bo admitted that the Detroit De-troit Big Four was not as fast on the bases as Mack's men. Doylo at first; Reltz at second; Jennings at short and McGraw at third of the old Baltimore Orioles -nuld not compare with the present bunch of Athletics. Doyle was a scrappy, aggressive player; Reltz a great men on the de-fense. de-fense. But these two do not belong In (ho ff.mp company with players like Mclnnls and Collins. Jennings and McGraw, taken all- STUFFY M'INNIS. around, were better ball players than Barry and Baker. Pittsburg had an excellent Infield in Bransfield. Rltehev, Wagner and Leach, but they would have to be all Warners to excell Mack's crowd. The Boston Nationals had a won-flerful won-flerful quartette In Fred Tenney at first base: Bobby Lowe at second; Herman Lone at short, and Jimmy Coillns at third. This infield aggregation was a far better fielding team than the boys managed by Connie Mack, but as hitters, tho Athletics could give the Beaneaters one hundred points on a season, then boat them out. Another great fioldlnp quartette was tho one that worked for tho St. Louis Maroons of tho Union Association. Asso-ciation. Al MKInnon was on first; Fred Punlap at second Jack Glasscock at short, and Fred Denny at third. Neither the Boston crew nor the Athletics ranked In the same class as fielders with the old St. Louis crowd. "BIG t" BROWNIES LED BY CHARLEY COMISKEY. Charley Comlskey, Yankee Robinson, Rob-inson, Bill Gleason and Arllo Latham, Lath-am, formed a brainy crowd that covered the lnfiold for Chris Von Der Ahe's four-time winners In tho olden days. This bunch had more gray matter mat-ter than even the present world s champions, but the players did not hit as often, although they were even better in the pinch than the Athletics. Dear old "Fop" Anson, one of the greatest ball players the game has ever known, had the famous "Stonewall Infield" with him at Chicago, At short, vas Ed Williamson. Ed was better than an average batsman bats-man and one of the few who knew how to wait for .1 ball and get tho one that he wanted before striking. He was a good third baseman, a good catcher and a man who could pitch more than fairly well. Tommy Burns played third. He was a fair base runner and a good hitter. He was one of the first players to go feet or head first Into first base. Fred Pfeffer was even a better fielder than Collins. but Pfeffer could never hit. Anson, while not as clever a fielder or base runner, could hit them farther and harder than even the slugging Mclnnls. WhPn Mike Kelly played third baso this infield camo dangerously near to being as great as tho present pres-ent "million-dollar Infield " Just a word here for those who consider Collins the greatest of the second basemen. He does not do- . serve this honor. Fred Dunlap. one of the old St. Louis Unions, was the greatest of all the men who ever covorod second base. And Dunlap never wore a glove. Contemporaneous with - Dunlap were such great second baseman as Bid McPhee of Cincinnati. Fred Pfeffer of Chicago; Joe Gerhardt of Loulsvillu. Danny Richardson of Sew York; Cui'i'J Dillds of Cleveland; Cleve-land; Nap Lajolo of Cloveland; Sam Wise of Boston; Reltz of Baltimore; Rltchey of Pittsburg, and Joo Quinn of Boston None of these players it was generally gen-erally admitted could beln to compare with Dunlap covering second sec-ond baso. , . JACK BARRY. H The baseball world will never see I his equal. II Dunlap was the right size for the ideal second baseman, being just above tho medium height. It was 1 H an easy task for him to get down I quick and handle the meanest drlva J ', I or the poorest throw. 1 Dunlap was ambidextrous. In It covering second he would run and catch a badly tossed ball as well with his left asr with his right hand. At putting the ball on the runner 1 ' with either hand or tossing It right j or left-handed to frst base, second, third or home for the play, he I never had an equal. I DUNLAP THE QUICKEST I THINKER IN BASEBALL. Great as a fielder he was even li greater as a thrower. His arm was as accurate as a rifle shot. He seldom sel-dom missed the mark And as he j was accurate he was speedy as j lightning. His double plavs were I made with a single swing and he hot the ball so low that it seemed II to top the short ras-s. jj Great as Dunlap was as a fielder U and peggcr. he was a I. 39 wonderful as a base runner. He ran low to the ground and with wonderful speed He was as supple and free with his limbs as though made of ! rubber. His great strength made him a wonderful batsman In 1884, hs I owned a batting average of .421. Three years later, when with the j Detroit team whih won the Na-tional Na-tional League championship and the world's flag In 1SS7, Dunlap's average was .226. He was not only a hard hitter, j but a plucky and determined one and he never fielder or batted bet- j ter than when put to the supreme test in some all-Important game. Strange as It may seem, how-ever, how-ever, Dunlap. although the quickest quick-est baseball mind ever known, was dull In other directions. Ha could neither read nor write. This Ignorance, however, did not handicap him as much as one J would suppose. l He was a magnificent man on and off the field. He had the finest of features, the nose of an Indian Chief and the brown eyes of a beautiful woman. From long service under the j sun he had grown almost almond-skinned, almond-skinned, but this color, added to j the brown eyes, only made his face ' look more noble and handsome. Off the field he always dressed ele- I gantly. In raiment, looks and conduct, con-duct, he was always a gentleman. 1 When Dunlap quit the game his real life went out He was never the same man afterwards The j fortune of $100,00nhc earned during dur-ing his career on the diamond, he ,1 dissipated, Long before old age claimed him, he passed away.. j His funeral which took place In Philadelphia was Ignored by the professional players of the Quaker j He never was a favorite with the j baseball players, suffering the same treatment that 's always allotted to j geniuses In any profession. I There were not enough friends of Dunlap to bury htm and hack drlv- I ers had to be called upon to act as pallbearers. When Dunla went back to Phil- adelphla after leaving the diamond, Iip brought nearly 1100.000 with him He died a pauper and what he did with all his money, no one I I seems to know ! But that he was the greatest of I all tho second baseman there Is I not tho least doubt In the minds j of those who have sees, hem alL I I |