What Price Historical Accuracy?

Every game of vintage baseball has its own challenges.  On Saturday at the Howell Living History Farm near Lambertville, NJ there were two - another field definitely not intended for baseball and a lack of Elizabeth Resolute players.  Fortunately, the Neshanock had more than enough players and a lot of experience fitting the ground to the game. With regard to the field, the challenge was how to play a game with an outfield full of large trees.  Chris "Lowball" Lowry was more than up to the challenge, however, devising satisfactory solutions that enabled the game to be played with minimal difficulty.  "Lowball" then took the lead on the player shortage problem by volunteering to play for Elizabeth.  He was joined by Sam "Ewing" Ricco and Ernie "Shredder" Albanesius who manfully filled the other remaining vacancies.

All pictures by Mark Granieri

With those difficulties resolved, the game got underway with Elizabeth at the striker's line.  Flemington's defense, behind Bobby "Melky" Ritter, set the side down in order, and did so again in the second and third as well.  By then the Neshanock were ahead 4-0 thanks to a two run homer by Danny "Lefty" Gallagher in the first and Tom "Thumbs" Hoepfner's two run triple in the third.  Elizabeth rallied for two runs in the top of the fourth, but the Neshanock added three more, "led" by Mark "Gaslight" Granieri, who reached base on one of the shortest hits in baseball history.  Hits by Joe "Mick" Murray and Paul "O'Neill" Cincotta also contributed to the rally.  "O'Neill," still early in his first season, set a team record by bringing more fans than the rest of the Neshanock and Resolutes combined.  Flemington broke the game open in the bottom of the fifth, tallying five times led by another two run homer from "Lefty." Both blasts were hit past the trees as well as the outfielders.

Lower right is the scorebook that sparked so much interest on the Roller Out The Barrel Podcast

The Resolutes added four more runs, but it wasn't enough as Flemington prevailed 15-6.  "Lefty" led the Neshanock attack with an unusual clear score - a walk, two home runs and a triple.  It's the first clear score I remember without either a double or single.  Somewhat surprisingly "Mick" was the only other Neshanock with three hits, but there was good balance throughout the lineup.  Chris "Sideshow" Nunn, "Thumbs," "Gaslight," "O'Neill" and John Stefano each contributed two hits.  We were glad to have John with us for his first game with the Neshanock and we hope he becomes a regular.  Also present, catching an inning and taking a turn at the striker's line was Scott "Snuffy" Hengst.  "Melky" went the distance aided by a strong defensive effort including two stellar grabs of foul tips by "Gaslight."

It only seemed like the entire crowd was made up of the friends and family of Paul "O'Neill" Cincotta

Just as on Memorial Day in Newtown, the match at Howell Farm attracted a good crowd, raising the question of why people, other than family and friends, come out to watch 1864 baseball.  I suspect it's for the same reason we play it - to see and understand the differences between the game then and now.  Anyone who attends a vintage game is insured of seeing at least some of those differences - obviously all pitching is underhanded and it's an unusual game that doesn't include some one bounce outs, fair or foul.  It's far less common, however, for spectators to witness what happened at Newtown on a Memorial Day - a close play on the bases at a crucial stage of a game.  To borrow from Ernest Thayer - the score stood 7-7 with just two innings left to play.  At the bat was not the "immortal Casey," but a member of the Newtown Strakes with one out and no one on base.  The striker hit an infield grounder and arrived at first base almost simultaneously with the ball.

The cows were equally uninterested in the game and the lost ball

It was not only a close play, but an important one - either there were two out with none on or a runner on first with just one out - a big difference.  Doubtless many fans turned their eyes or at least their ears towards umpire Sam Bernstein, awaiting for his call. Sam, however, didn't say anything because he's well aware that in 1864 baseball, the umpire's responsibilities are limited to calling balks, foul balls plus balls and strikes. What's missing from this list?  Clearly plays on the bases like the one in question here.  In 1864, baseball was considered a gentleman's game and the gentlemen both in the field and on the bases were supposed to call safe or out correctly regardless of whether it helped or hurt their team.  Obviously there were plays where the players honestly disagreed.  Such disagreements were resolved by asking the umpire for judgment as to whether the runner was out or safe.  The play in Newtown was handled exactly as it should have - the two players disagreed, judgement was sought and the runner was called safe.

Joe "Mick" Murray is grateful no balls have been hit by the pump

My purpose here is not to exercise my own judgement on the call - I'm not sure how I would have called it.  What's important, at least to me, is not whether or not the call was correct, but rather was the process historically accurate?  Indeed it was, but we should also recognize the challenge such situations create for vintage baseball players.  In the 1860s, players only knew the rules they had. We today, however, have to "unlearn" the modern approach where the responsibility rests with an umpire, positioned much closer to the play, now backed up by video review.  What's the price of historical accuracy here?  It's using and, equally importantly, accepting a process more at risk of producing an incorrect outcome.  Doing so, however, fulfills our core mission of recreating baseball the way it was played in the 1860s.  It may or may not be a higher calling, but it's certainly a different one.  One that in my view is well worth honoring to the best of our ability.