Locked out of twitter
History of Incumbents and Recessions – What you believe is a lie.
Many Believe that Incumbents lose re-election during poor economies or recessions. People like Nate Silver will cite George H. W. Bush in 1992 or the 2008 election. Frank Luntz often refers to the 1976 & 1980 elections. There is a lot of details these buffoons are leaving out.
There has been numerous incumbents to will re-election during recessions.
Thomas Jefferson in 1804, James Madison 1812, james Monroe in 1820, William McKinley in 1900, Teddy Roosevelt in 1904, Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Harry Truman in 1948.
Most will dismiss everyone on that list because they preceded the polling era (except Truman). But The polling era didn’t start until 1948. 150 years of history is being ignored.
The excuse for excluding Harry Truman is that the recession didn’t begin until November of 1948 (after the election). The problem with this is the GDP in 1945 was -1.0%. In 1946, the GDP was -11.6%. In 1947, the GDP was -1.1%. The economy was bad. I want to point out that the case for using Bush 41 as evidence was that even though the 1990 recession had ended 20 months before the 1992 election….the economy recovered slowly. That’s fine, but Truman had a recession 11 months before re-election and is often excluded from the list of incumbents who faced recessions during re-election. Why? Truman won and it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Most incumbents who lost re-election during a recession were seeking a 3rd, 4th, or 5th term for their party in the white house. throughout American history only 2 incumbents have lost re-election during a recession while seeking the 2nd straight term for their party (which is what Trump is doing). Grover Cleveland in 1888 and Jimmy Carter in 1980 (both Democrats). However, Grover Cleveland still won the popular vote. Jimmy Carter is the only Incumbent to lose both the electoral college and popular vote during a recession while seeking the 2nd straight term for their party in the white house. Jimmy Carter is not the rule. He is the exception to the rule.
There are additional examples where the incumbent party won during a recession. In 1808, James Madison won a 3rd straight term for the Democratic-Republican party during a recession. In 1816, James Monroe won a 5th straight term for the Democratic-Republican party during a recession. In 1836, Martin Van Buren won a 3rd straight term for the Democrat party during the Cholera pandemic and a recession. In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes won a 3rd straight term for the Republican party during a recession. In 1908, William Howard Taft won a 4th straight term for the Republican party during nationwide riots and a recession. Overall, the incumbent party is 12-11 when facing a recession during re-election.
Bottomline, Incumbents win re-election. It doesn’t matter what Nate Silver or Ryan Gurdusky think….incumbents win.
Elvis Presley Chart History from 1968-1977
1968 US Billboard Singles
If I Can Dream – Peak #12 (RIAA: Platinum)
1968 US Billboard Albums
Elvis NBC TV Special (Live Album) – Peak #8 (RIAA: Platinum)
1968 Canada Singles
If I Can Dream – Peak #7
1968 Canada Albums
Elvis NBC TV Special (Live Album) – Peak #4
1968 UK Singles
If I Can Dream – Peak #11
1968 UK Albums
Elvis NBC TV Special (Live Album) – Peak #2
1968 Australia Singles
If I Can Dream – Peak #2
1968 Australia Albums
Elvis NBC TV Special (Live Album) – Peak #6
1969 US Billboard Singles
Suspicious Minds – Peak #1(RIAA: Platinum)
In the Ghetto – Peak #3 (RIAA: Platinum)
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #6 (RIAA: Platinum)
Memories – Peak #35
Clean up your own back yard – Peak #35 (RIAA: Gold)
1969 US Billboard Albums
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #12 (RIAA: Gold)
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #13 (RIAA: Gold)
1969 US Country Singles
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #13
1969 US Top Country Albums
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #2
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #5
1969 US Adult Contemporary Singles
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #3
Suspicious Minds – Peak #4
Memories – Peak #7
In the Ghetto – Peak #8
Clean up your own back yard – Peak #37
1969 US Cashbox Singles
Suspicious Minds – Peak #1
In the Ghetto – Peak #1
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #6
Memories – Peak #24
Clean up your own back yard – Peak #25
1969 US Cashbox Albums
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #9
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #11
1969 US Cashbox Country Albums
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #4
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #5
1969 Canada Singles
Suspicious Minds – Peak #1
In the Ghetto – Peak #2
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #5
1969 Canada Albums
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #5
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #10
1969 UK Singles
Suspicious Minds – Peak #2
In the Ghetto – Peak #2
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #8
Clean up your own back yard – Peak #21
1969 UK Albums
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #1
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #3
1969 Australia Singles
Suspicious Minds – Peak #1
In the Ghetto – Peak #1
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #3
Memories – Peak #19
Clean up your own back yard – Peak #27
1969 Australia Albums
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #5
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #7
1969 Germany Singles
In the Ghetto – Peak #1
Suspicious Minds – Peak #7
Don’t Cry Daddy – Peak #14
1969 Germany Albums
From Elvis In Memphis – Peak #14
From Memphis to Vegas/From Vegas to Memphis (Live Album) – Peak #37
1970 US Billboard Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #9 (RIAA: Gold)
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #11 (RIAA: Gold)
Kentucky Rain – Peak #16 (RIAA: Gold)
I Really Don’t Want to Know – Peak #21 (RIAA: Gold)
I’ve Lost You – Peak #32 (RIAA: Gold)
1970 US Billboard Albums
On Stage-February, 1970 (Live Album) – Peak #13 (RIAA: Platinum)
Elvis: That’s The Way It Is (Live Album) – Peak #21 (RIAA: Gold)
Worldwide 50 Gold Award Hits, Vol. 1 – Peak #45 (RIAA: 2x Platinum)
Almost In Love – Peak #65 (RIAA: Platinum)
Let’s Be Friends – Peak #105 (RIAA: Platinum)
Elvis Back In Memphis – Peak #183 (RIAA: Gold)
Elvis’ Christmas Album (Camden) – Did Not Chart (RIAA: Diamond)
Elvis In Person (Live Album) – Did Not Chart (RIAA: Platinum)
1970 Variety National Box Office Survey
Elvis: That’s the Way It Is (Film) – Peak #22
1970 US Country Singles
There Goes My Everything – Peak #9
I Really Don’t Want to Know – Peak #23
Kentucky Rain – Peak #31
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #37
1970 US Top Country Albums
Elvis: That’s The Way It Is (Live Album) – Peak #8
On Stage-February, 1970 (Live Album) – Peak #13
Worldwide 50 Gold Award Hits, Vol. 1 – Peak #25
1970 US Adult Contemporary Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #1
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #1
I Really Don’t Want to Know – Peak #2
Kentucky Rain – Peak #3
I’ve Lost You – Peak #5
1970 US Cashbox Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #10
Kentucky Rain – Peak #10
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #10
I Really Don’t Want to Know – Peak #13
I’ve Lost You – Peak #18
The Next Step is Love – Peak #30
1970 US Cashbox Albums
Elvis: That’s The Way It Is (Live Album) – Peak #8
On Stage-February, 1970 (Live Album) – Peak #27
Worldwide 50 Gold Award Hits, Vol. 1 – Peak #36
1970 US Country Cashbox Singles
There Goes My Everything – Peak #5
Kentucky Rain – Peak #22
I’ve Lost You – Peak #30
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #31
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #39
1970 US Cashbox Country Albums
1970 Canada Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #4
Kentucky Rain – Peak #6
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #6
I Really Don’t Want to Know – Peak #9
I’ve Lost You – Peak #26
1970 UK Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #1
There Goes My Everything – Peak #6
I’ve Lost You – Peak #9
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #9
Kentucky Rain – Peak #21
1970 Australia Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #3
I’ve Lost You – Peak #6
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #7
Kentucky Rain – Peak #9
There Goes My Everything – Peak #13
1970 France Singles
You Don’t Have to Say You Love Me – Peak #1
1970 Germany Singles
The Wonder of You (Live) – Peak #22
Kentucky Rain – Peak #40
I’ve Lost You – Peak #40
1971 US Billboard Singles
Where Did They Go, Lord? – Peak #33
I’m Leavin – Peak #36
1971 US Country Singles
Life – Peak #34
1971 US Adult Contemporary Singles
I’m Leavin – Peak #2
Life – Peak #8
Where Did They Go, Lord? – Peak #18
It’s Only Love – Peak #19
1971 US Cashbox Singles
Where Did They Go, Lord? – Peak #34
I’m Leavin – Peak #36
Life – Peak #40
1971 US Country Cashbox Singles
Life – Peak #26
1971 Canada Singles
Where Did They Go, Lord? – Peak #28
1971 UK Singles
I Just Can’t Help Believin’ (Live) – Peak #6
Rags to Riches – Peak #9
I’m Leavin – Peak #23
1971 Australia Singles
Rags to Riches – Peak #34
1972 US Billboard Singles
Burning Love – Peak #2 (Certified Platinum)
Separate Ways – Peak #20 (Certified Gold)
Until It’s Time for You to Go – Peak #40
1972 Variety National Box Office Survey
Elvis: On Tour (Film) – Peak #13 (Golden Globe Award for Best Documentary)
1972 US Country Singles
Always on my Mind – Peak #16
It’s a Matter of Time – Peak #36
1972 US Adult Contemporary Singles
Separate Ways – Peak #3
It’s a Matter of Time – Peak #9
Until It’s Time for You to Go – Peak #9
An American Trilogy (Live) – Peak #31
1972 US Cashbox Singles
Burning Love – Peak #1
Separate Ways – Peak #15
Until It’s Time for You to Go – Peak #31
1972 US Country Cashbox Singles
Burning Love – Peak #23
Separate Ways – Peak #30
1972 Canada Singles
Burning Love – Peak #4
Until It’s Time for You to Go – Peak #12
1972 UK Singles
Until It’s Time for You to Go – Peak #5
Burning Love – Peak #7
An American Trilogy (Live) – Peak #8
Always on my Mind – Peak #9
1972 Australia Singles
Burning Love – Peak #3
Separate Ways – Peak #8
1972 France Singles
Burning Love – Peak #7
1972 Germany Singles
Burning Love – Peak #31
1973 US Billboard Singles
Steamroller Blues (Live) – Peak #17
1973 US Country Singles
Fool – Peak #31
1973 US Adult Contemporary Singles
Fool – Peak #12
Raised on Rock – Peak #27
1973 US Cashbox Singles
Steamroller Blues (Live) – Peak #10
Raised on Rock – Peak #27
1973 US Country Cashbox Singles
Fool – Peak #30
1973 UK Singles
Fool – Peak #15
Polk Salad Annie (Live) – Peak #23
Raised on Rock – Peak #36
1973 Australia Singles
Steamroller Blues (Live) – Peak #17
Fool – Peak #21
Raised on Rock – Peak #37
1973 France Singles
C. C. Rider (Live) – Peak #28
1974 US Billboard Singles
Promised Land – Peak #14
If You Talk in Your Sleep – Peak #17
I’ve Got a Thing About You Baby – Peak #39
1974 US Country Singles
I’ve Got a Thing About You Baby – Peak #4
Help Me – Peak #6
It’s Midnight – Peak #9
1974 US Adult Contemporary Singles
If You Talk in Your Sleep – Peak #6
It’s Midnight – Peak #8
Take Good Care of Her – Peak #27
1974 US Cashbox Singles
Promised Land – Peak #22
If You Talk in Your Sleep – Peak #23
I’ve Got a Thing About You Baby – Peak #30
1974 US Country Cashbox Singles
Help Me – Peak #4
I’ve Got a Thing About You Baby – Peak #7
It’s Midnight – Peak #9
1974 UK Singles
Promised Land – Peak #9
I’ve Got a Thing About You Baby – Peak #33
If You Talk in Your Sleep – Peak #40
1974 Australia Singles
If You Talk in Your Sleep – Peak #37
1974 France Singles
Promised Land – Peak #25
1975 US Billboard Singles
My Boy – Peak #20
T-R-O-U-B-L-E – Peak #35
1975 US Country Singles
T-R-O-U-B-L-E – Peak #11
My Boy – Peak #14
Pieces of my Life – Peak #33
1975 Adult Contemporary Singles
My Boy – Peak #1
1975 US Cashbox Singles
My Boy – Peak #17
T-R-O-U-B-L-E – Peak #40
1975 US Country Cashbox Singles
My Boy – Peak #17
T-R-O-U-B-L-E – Peak #18
Pieces of my Life – Peak #32
1975 Canada Singles
My Boy – Peak #27
1975 UK Singles
My Boy – Peak #5
Green Green Grass of Home – Peak #29
T-R-O-U-B-L-E – Peak #31
1975 Australia Singles
My Boy – Peak #10
1976 US Billboard Singles
Hurt – Peak #28
Moody Blue – Peak #31
1976 US Country Singles
Moody Blue – Peak #1
Hurt – Peak #6
1976 Adult Contemporary Singles
Moody Blue – Peak #2
Hurt – Peak #7
1976 US Cashbox Singles
Hurt – Peak #31
Moody Blue – Peak #39
1976 US Country Cashbox Singles
Moody Blue – Peak #1
Hurt – Peak #9
1976 UK Singles
Moody Blue – Peak #6
Hurt – Peak #37
1976 Australia Singles
Moody Blue – Peak #17
1976 France Singles
Moody Blue – Peak #4
1977 US Billboard Singles
Way Down – Peak #18 (Certified Platinum)
My Way (Live) – Peak #22 (Certified Gold)
1977 US Country Singles
Way Down – Peak #1
My Way (Live) – Peak #2
1977 US Adult Contemporary Singles
My Way (Live) – Peak #6
Way Down – Peak #14
1977 US Cashbox Singles
Way Down – Peak #25
My Way (Live) – Peak #31
1977 US Country Cashbox Singles
Way Down – Peak #1
My Way (Live) – Peak #1
1977 Canada Singles
My Way (Live) – Peak #14
1977 UK Singles
Way Down – Peak #1
My Way (Live) – Peak #9
1977 Australia Singles
Way Down – Peak #6
1977 France Singles
Way Down – Peak #6
1977 Germany Singles
Way Down – Peak #15
US Billboard Singles
#1 Hits: 1
Top 5 Hits: 3
Top 10 Hits: 5
Top 25 Hits: 16
Top 40 Hits: 26
US Country Singles
#1 Hits: 2
Top 5 Hits: 4
Top 10 Hits: 8
Top 25 Hits: 13
Top 40 Hits: 19
US Adult Contemporary Singles
#1 Hits: 3
Top 5 Hits: 11
Top 10 Hits: 20
Top 25 Hits: 24
Top 40 Hits: 28
US Cashbox Singles
#1 Hits: 3
Top 5 Hits: 3
Top 10 Hits: 8
Top 25 Hits: 16
Top 40 Hits: 27
US Country Cashbox Singles
#1 Hits: 3
Top 5 Hits: 3
Top 10 Hits: 8
Top 25 Hits: 13
Top 40 Hits: 20
Canada Singles
#1 Hits: 1
Top 5 Hits: 5
Top 10 Hits: 9
Top 25 Hits: 11
Top 40 Hits: 13
UK Singles
#1 Hits: 2
Top 5 Hits: 6
Top 10 Hits: 18
Top 25 Hits: 24
Top 40 Hits: 30
Australia Singles
#1 Hits: 2
Top 5 Hits: 6
Top 10 Hits: 12
Top 25 Hits: 17
Top 40 Hits: 21
France Singles
#1 Hits: 1
Top 5 Hits: 2
Top 10 Hits: 4
Top 25 Hits: 5
Top 40 Hits: 6
Germany Singles
#1 Hits: 1
Top 5 Hits: 1
Top 10 Hits: 2
Top 25 Hits: 4
Top 40 Hits: 5
Defining a Player by His ERA
Ball players can only control one thing…how well they play. They can not control the rules of the game. Just because Old Hoss Radbourn played in the 1880s, doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great player. Many historians will claim that the game was different and Radbourn doesn’t measure up to the players in the modern ERA. But Radbourn cannot control the rules of the game in 1884 or 1889. We have to define a player by his era, and not by the standards of our era. Cap Anson cannot live up to the standards of our ERA today because he was busy living up to the standards of his era. Anson and Radbourn were 2 of the best players of their era, and their achievements shouldn’t be diminished because they played in an ERA very different from today.
players like Ross Barnes are not considered a hall of famer because he played his best baseball in the National Association (1871-1875). Major League Baseball and the Baseball Hall of Fame does not consider the NA a major league. However, the NA was the only professional baseball league in the world at the time. By default it was the highest level of play any one player could reach. Because of that, It is a major league. Just because the league wide talent did not have as high of a level does not mean it wasn’t the highest level of play. We must judge players by the era they play in…not by the modern standards the experts have set for the game.
Baseball and it’s little known connection to Plymouth Colony.
It was December 25, 1621[i]. Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation was calling the residents “out to work as was used.[ii]” “It goes against our consciences to work this day[iii],” said the new company on Plymouth Plantation to Governor Bradford’s work request. The Puritan separatists were against Christmas. People like Governor William Bradford saw Christmas as a Pagan Holiday. Yet, not every resident on Plymouth Plantation was not a Puritan Separatist and therefore saw Christmas day as a day of celebration. “If you make it a matter of conscience, than I will spare you until you are better informed,” the Governor replied. Governor William Bradford headed to work with the rest of them. When the governor returned, he found the new company playing stool-ball. The governor was furious. Mr. Bradford took their equipment from the new company. “It is against my conscience for you to play and other work. If you made the keeping of it a matter of devotion, we’ll let you keep your home, but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets,” the Governor exclaimed. The Governor was more opposed to the new company playing whiles others working. Because as Yoram Weiss writes in his scholarly paper Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas, the Puritans were not exactly opposed to fun and games as they have been stereotyped as such.
[i] Plymouth Plantation William Bradford
[ii] ibid
[iii] ibid
Prehistoric Baseball: The Story of early baseball in Colonial America
In 1621, there was a dispute between the participants in a stool ball game and Governor William Bradford for playing on Christmas day while everyone else worked.[1] The Puritans were separatists and did not believe in celebrating Christmas because it was a pagan holiday and the puritans went to work like any other day.[2] Governor William Bradford allowed those who wished to celebrate Christmas to take a day off from their work.[3] Later, Governor William Bradford found those people playing stool ball and pitching the bar in the street while everyone else was working.[4] Governor William Bradford took away their games and told them it “was against his conscience that they should play and others work.”[5] Bradford wrote about this in his journal.[6] This showed us that while the Puritans worked hard, they did have some time to enjoy fun and game, and often they had too much time to enjoy games like early forms of baseball.[7] The governor of Plymouth Plantation was William Bradford. He happened to be a major character in the story. William Bradford was a devoted separatist of the English Church. He did not believe in celebrating the Christmas Holiday because all days should be sacred. He also saw the Christmas holiday a pagan tradition. This became a problem for the game of Stool Ball because games like stool ball were often played at festivities and the governor objects to festivities on Christmas. Another obstacle the game of stool ball faced is town laws. At the time of the existence of Plymouth Plantation, There were a couple town laws put in place to restrict the games being played. In this story, it will be seen how the religious ways of the Puritans affected (but did not impede) the furthering of recreation. Also, how some of the objection to game being played like stool ball did not have anything to do with religion, but just the time and place. The children in general were an important set of characters. We have seen how the kids who played these games were able to get around the rules and still play the games, and the consequences of going around the rules. The main character, as funny as it may sound, was the game stool ball. The game was the one that the children wanted to play the game, and the Governor William Bradford was not that fond of the game. The story was really about the game and the reaction towards it. Overall, the subject of this project has been an attempt to illustrate a story about the early game of baseball and how the game persisted to thrive despite great obstacles in the early going. Basically, the story here started in Plymouth Plantation. The story of baseball has lasted for quite some time, but the subject of this project was to tell a small portion of that story. So, just a look at this simple analysis, it was easy to tell that baseball has been a consistent and even overlooked part of American culture. It has been said often that baseball was not from America, it came from England. Well, the Puritans came from England and they brought with them a game called stool ball. The Puritan contribution to American culture was bigger than anyone would have ever thought.
The history of baseball has been something of great debate. Where did the game of baseball start? Who invented it? The American debate has been was it an English game or American game? Many scholars have agreed that it was an English game. Scholars who take that stance most likely were wrong. The game of baseball American game at its origins either, yet it most likely came to the Americas from the West (‘Americas’ distinct from the United States). Now ground zero for the game of baseball was in Ancient Egypt.[8] The Egyptian game was called seker-hemat or batting the ball. It was my belief that the Egyptian culture traveled in two directions mainly because of foreign occupation Egypt several times over.[9] The two directions were Europe and eventually England. The second direction was through modern day and eventually Russia by 14th century.[10] Early pioneers like General Funston and Spalding assumed baseball would be newly introduced to the indigenous people of the Far North. This was a misconception.[11] Before Americans brought their version of baseball northward, Alaska Natives played a game described as a mix of cricket, dodgeball and baseball.[12] The Native American version of baseball most likely made it to Alaska by coming through two different routes.[13] The Russians introduced to the Aleut and Alutiiq people of Alaska area an ancient batting game called Lapta, which dates back to the 14th century.[14] During the 19th century, Sami reindeer herders from Scandinavia taught the Inupiat, Inuit, and Yupik people Lapp Ball.[15] The two versions likely came from the same Siberian source.[16] This story was all about the route out of England. The story of how the Puritans brought the United States culture the game of baseball.
A single culture connected to the origins of baseball was why the method of microhistory was the most efficient method of historical research and historical point of view. The origins and lineage of baseball was often a mainstream point of view. The story the essay told was of the unrecognized contributions the Puritans had to American culture and how the Puritans of Plymouth Colony gave the future United States of America a piece of culture that has been a large portion of the American culture. In this research project, the question was posed: how expansive was the game stool ball (Early form of baseball) in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620 to 1690 as it pertained to finding out what this game of stool ball in puritan New England large contribution to the future of American Culture? Was Stool Ball a game that was played at festive events? Maybe it was played at thanksgiving fests. Not that this was necessary to know, yet if this game was enjoyed at get-togethers than one could draw a picture on how wide spread within the Plymouth Colonies it was. Why has this question been important? It has been important because the expansiveness of the game stool ball had spoken to the expansion of the game from culture to culture. Why was the knowledge of culture-to-culture spreading so important? It was simple; identifying that the game stool ball (early form of baseball) spread from culture-to-culture would give historians the beginning of the Genealogy of Baseball. The Puritans came to Plymouth (USA) with a game called stool ball. Stool ball was an early form of baseball, and by default the puritans gave us baseball or at least brought it to us.
There has been much written about the many contributions of the puritans, but the contribution of baseball has been nearly brushed over. Let’s look at this for a second. Baseball has been a huge part of American culture. Organized Amateur leagues predate the civil war. In 1845, The New York Knickerbockers put together rules that were the foundation of the amateur baseball. After the Civil War, pro baseball formed…1869 to be exact. One year later, in 1870, the Chicago White Stockings (Cubs) were formed. The Chicago Cubs Franchise predates the formation of the National League. Not to get to bogged down into the details of baseball history, but for 148 of the 241 years that our great country has existed, pro baseball has existed (or 61% of America’s history). Also, 172 years of America’s existence organized baseball has existed (or 71% of America’s history). To go a step further, the earliest mention of ‘baseball’ was in a town hall record in Philadelphia in 1791. For 226 years of America’s existence, baseball has at the very least been played for recreation (or 93% of America’s history). So, just looking at this simple analysis, it was easy to tell that baseball has been a consistent and even overlooked part of American culture. It was always said that baseball was not from America, it came from England. Well, the Puritans came from England and they brought with them a game called stool ball. The Puritan contribution to American culture was bigger than anyone would have ever thought.
The game in focus here was Stool-ball, an early ancestor of baseball. Stoolball was a sport that dates back to at least the 1400s, originating in Sussex, England. It was an ancestor of baseball and rounders; in fact stoolball was sometimes called Cricket in the air.[17] Originally, it was played by farmhands who used the milking stools as a wicket.[18] Stoolball was attested by name as early as 1450.[19][20] Almost all references during the medieval period describe it as a game played during Easter celebrations, typically as a courtship pastime rather than a competitive game.[21][22] The game’s associations with romance remained strong into the modern period; Fletcher and Shakespeare’s comedy The Two Noble Kinsmen, used the phrase playing stool ball as slang for sexual behaviour.[23][24] Alice Gomme wrote that the earliest references show that the game was called Stobball or Stoball,[25] and was a game peculiar to North Wilts, North Gloucestershire, and a little part of Somerset, near Bath: but although 1600s antiquarian John Aubrey describes a game called Stobball, played in this area, his description of it does not sound like stoolball,[26] and another contemporary text from the same region characterises stoball as a game played mainly by men and boys.[27] The Oxford English Dictionary says that it was unlikely that stool ball could have been corrupted into stobball.[28] In an 1801 book entitled The Sports and Pastimes of the People of England, Joseph Strutt claimed to have shown that baseball-like games can be traced back to the 14th century, in particular an English game called stoolball.[29] The earliest known reference to stoolball was in a poem written in 1330 by William Pagula, who recommended to priests that the game be forbidden within churchyards.[30] With the history of the game, it was clearly imbedded in the culture of the English culture, the same English culture that was brought over to America with the Puritans. This has been the history of baseball.
In the game of stoolball, one player threw the ball at a target at the same time as another player defended the target.[31] Originally, the target was defended with a bare hand.[32] Later down the line, the participants would use a bat of some kind was used.[33] Stob-ball and stow-ball were regional games similar to stoolball.[34] What the target originally was in stoolball was not certain; it was possibly a tree stump, since stob and stow all mean stump in some local dialects.[35] It was notable that in cricket to this day, the uprights of the wicket were called stumps.[36] Of course, the target could well have been whatever was convenient, perhaps even a gravestone.[37] A 1600s book on games specifies a stool.[38] As one legend goes, milkmaids played stoolball as they waited for their husbands to return from the fields in which they worked.[39] Another theory was that stoolball developed as a game played after attending church services, in which case the target was probably a church stool.[40] A 1700s poem illustrates people of both sexes who played together, and it associates the game especially with the Easter holiday.[41] Over the years, there were several versions of stoolball.[42] In the earliest versions, the object was primarily to defend the stool.[43] Defending the stool successfully counted for one point and the batter would then be out if the ball hit the stool.[44] There was no running involved. There was another version of stoolball that involved running between two stools, and scoring was similar to the scoring in cricket.[45] In another version there were several stools, and points were scored by running around them just as in baseball.[46]
When the Puritans came to America from their religious intolerant homeland, they brought the game of stoolball along with them.[47] Governor of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford wrote in his journal on Christmas Day in 1621, which noted how the people of Plymouth were “frolicking in the street, at play openly; some pitching the bar, some at stoole-ball and shuch-like sport”.[48] Because of the many different versions of stoolball, and because the game of stool ball wasn’t just played in England, but also in colonial America, the game of stoolball was considered by many to have been the basis of not only cricket, but both baseball and rounders did as well.[49] This just happened to be one of the most famous depictions of puritans at play. Governor Bradford was a villain to baseball’s survival because Governor Bradford rejects the ability to play games. This was pivotal to baseball’s survival because a popular game among the children and non-separatists in Plymouth Plantation was Stool Ball. Stool Ball was an early for of baseball, which had it not spread through the culture of the Northeastern part of America, baseball would have died out. Governor Bradford would have been responsible for the fatal blow.
The Puritans have been described as a group that was anti-fun or did not approve of pleasure. This has been easy to overlook, because most of the work done in the scholarly world was focused on the religious aspects of the Puritan people. For example, The Puritan Family and Religion: A Critical Reappraisal, by Gerald F. Moran and Maris A. Vinovskis, where the conversation starts about the religious nature of the puritans. In modern usage, the word puritan has been often used to describe someone who adheres to strict, joyless moral or religious principles.[50] By this definition, hedonism and puritanism have the same meaning.[51] In fact, Puritans actually embraced sexuality but only in the context of marriage.[52] One of the biggest obstacles of the early game of baseball was the puritans great devotion for their religion and their affinity for hard labor or lack of affinity for leisure. One of the things that helped baseball prevail was the non-separatists. The non-separatists were not against the pagan holiday of Christmas and did not have any problem playing on the holiday. This was the backbone of the eventual contribution by the puritans to America.
Peter Gay wrote that the Puritans have’ common reputation for something called “dour prudery” which was a misunderstanding of things that went unquestioned in the 1800s. Peter Gay went on to say how unpuritanical the Puritans were in favour of sex within the context of marriage, and really opposed the view of the Catholic veneration of virginity, based on writings and other knowledge from Edward Taylor and John Cotton.[53] One Puritan settlement in Western Massachusetts went as far as to banish a husband who refused to have sex with his wife.[54] The Puritan settlement sent him into exile.[55] There is the focus on the relationship with the Native Americans as well as the interest in the first Thanksgiving. The Native American angle has been important because the Puritans were friends with the local tribes. The local tribes played similar games. The Indians may have encouraged them to play games, encourage the non-separatists that is. Just another angle as to why the puritans made a much greater contribution to American culture than many originally thought.
The Puritans were in a sense, religious rebels. They left England because they disagreed with the Church of England. Arriving on the coast of Massachusetts Bay, the Puritans build Plymouth Plantation in 1620. A portion of Puritans were known as non-separating Puritans. These Puritans were Puritans who were not satisfied with the Reformation of the Church of England yet they remained with the church, while advocating for further reforms.[56] This group disagreed among themselves about how much further reformation was possible or even necessary.[57] Others thought that the Church of England was so corrupt that true Christians should separate from it altogether; they were known as separating Puritans or simply Separatists.[58] The term “Puritan” in the wider sense includes both groups.[59] Separatists had no particular Church title.[60] The Mayflower Pilgrims[61] were referred to only as Separatists.[62] Plymouth Colony leaders such as John Robinson and William Brewster were considered separatists.[63][64] On the other hand, John Winthrop, a main leader of Puritan journey to New England was considered a non-separating Puritan.[65] These were the puritans who were okay with playing games such as Stool Ball…an early form of baseball. There was a wide verity of views among modern historians on whether Separatists can or should be properly counted as Puritans,[66] never the less separatists and non-separatists alike have typically been seen by many as two separate groups of the Puritan view.[67] This is just another reason why the puritans gave American culture a much larger boost than anyone ever thought.
There was another group of people that influenced the playing of games by the Puritans and forced them out of the shell that Governor William Bradford had created around the town when it came to playing games like early forms of baseball. The Wampanoag Indians influenced the Puritans through celebration. The Wampanoag children learned to play a lot of games.[68] The Wampanoag children played a lot of different types of “toss and catch’ games.[69] It was common for the “toss and catch” games to be made with deer bones.[70] It was not just early forms of baseball with the Native Americans. But the Wampanoag most certainly played early forms of baseball with the puritans. It is unclear whether the Native Americans enjoyed Stool Ball as their own past time.
The Wampanoag culture encouraged “toss and catch” games because it built good eye-and-hand coordination.[71] This type of skill was helpful in hunting with a bow and arrows, which was a skill needed for survival.[72] These games were also common in England, but it was unclear to historians how often the children in Puritan life played these games.[73] There was not a lot of evidence of people from 1620 writing letters or keeping records about playing games, but none the less there has been evidence of some.[74] It was very safe to make the assertion that children in Plymouth Colony most likely played the same kinds of games that were played in England as well as the same games that the Wampanoag played,[75] since the interaction of the two groups happened quite frequently. The Wampanoag taught the Puritans how to cultivate the varieties of corn, squash and beans that flourished in New England, as well as how to catch fish, hunt for deer, and to process the food, so it was not incomprehensible that the Wampanoag and Puritans engaged in leisurely activity…including early forms of baseball.[76]
Just briefly, an introduction of the relationship between the Wampanoag and the Puritans. Following the year 1630, residents of Plymouth Colony became dominated by the Puritan population. The Puritans had no tolerance of other Christian denominations and saw the Native Americans largely as savages. The Puritans were soldiers and traders who had little interest in friendship or cooperation with the Indians.[77] The English expanded westward into the Connecticut River Valley.[78] As 1637 came around, the Puritans destroyed the Pequot Confederation in military action.[79] In 1643 they defeated the Narragansett in a war; with support from the English monarchy, effectively making the Wampanoag the dominant tribe in southern New England.[80] All this is important because there are certain relationships that the puritans had that may have helped the puritans overcome their religious nature that prevented them from partaking in regular fun. The major problem that stool ball faced in puritan life was Governor Bradford and his separatist’s beliefs.
Children were not the only ones in 1600s New England society having fun.[81] Adults, excluding Governor William Bradford, would occasionally played sports as part of celebrations, like weddings and other celebrations.[82] In 1621, there was a dispute between the participants in a stool ball game and Governor William Bradford for playing on Christmas day while everyone else worked.[83] The Puritans were separatists and did not believe in celebrating Christmas because it was a pagan holiday and the puritans went to work like any other day.[84] Governor William Bradford allowed those who wished to celebrate Christmas to take a day off from their work.[85] Later, Governor William Bradford found those people playing stool ball and pitching the bar in the street while everyone else was working.[86] Governor William Bradford took away their games and told them it “was against his conscience that they should play and others work.”[87] Bradford wrote about this in his journal.[88] This shows us that while the Puritans worked hard, they did have some time to enjoy fun and game, and often they had too much time to enjoy games like early forms of baseball.[89]
It was December 25, 1621[90]. Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation was calling the residents “out to work as was used.[91]” “It goes against our consciences to work this day,[92]” said the new company on Plymouth Plantation to Governor Bradford’s work request. The Puritan separatists were against Christmas. People like Governor William Bradford saw Christmas as a Pagan Holiday. Yet, not every resident on Plymouth Plantation was not a Puritan Separatist and therefore saw Christmas day as a day of celebration. “If you make it a matter of conscience, than I will spare you until you are better informed,[93]” the Governor replied. Governor William Bradford headed to work with the rest of them. When the governor returned, he found the new company playing stool-ball. The governor was furious. Mr. Bradford took their equipment from the new company. “It is against my conscience for you to play and other work. If you made the keeping of it a matter of devotion, we’ll let you keep your home, but there should be no gaming or reveling in the streets,[94]” the Governor exclaimed. The Governor was more opposed to the new company playing whiles others working. Because as Yoram Weiss writes in his scholarly paper Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas, the Puritans were not exactly opposed to fun and games as they have been stereotyped as such. In fact, the puritans played stool ball which was an early form of baseball.
Yoram Weiss, the author of Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas, reexamines an old question: what is work and why do we do it?[95] This is important because work was such an important part of the puritan culture and in order to understand other parts of their culture, one has to understand the largest part of their culture…or the largest stereotypical part of their culture. The main point as Yoram Weiss puts “was to review labor economics from the broader perspective of outsiders, including those who established our field. Labor was a familiar activity that most humans have experienced and many have thought about.[96]” The most important part of this article was how Yoram Weiss defines work and distinguishes it from leisure. In modern societies, as Weiss writes, leisure has become an option for a large segment of the population. The leisure activities have changed as well. Yoram Weiss addresses Smith by saying “Hunting and fishing, the most important employments of mankind in the rude state of society, become in it was advanced state their most agreeable amusements, and they pursue for pleasure what they once followed from necessity. In the advanced state of society, therefore, they are all very poor people who follow as a trade, what other people pursue as a pastime.”[97] The question then was how one can distinguish leisure from work? Yoram Weiss than addresses Jevons definition of labor as “any painful exertion of mind or body undergone partly or wholly with a view to future good.[98]” Applying the principle of diminishing marginal utility (and increasing marginal disutility), Jevons shifted attention from work or leisure as such to the marginal units of each activity.[99] The Counter-Argument has been brought to you by Gary Becker. Gary Becker asserts “that although the social philosopher might have to define precisely the concept of leisure, the economist can reach all his traditional results, as well as many more, without introducing it at all!”[100] Yoram Weiss addresses this counter-argument: “There was a real empirical challenge in such distinctions because of joint production.”[101] It was important to shift through all arguments and find the ones that were relevant and the ones that do not live up to their hype.
The puritans did not look kindly on games that were played, especially at times when it was not deemed by the puritan religion, appropriate. According to the annual report of the town of Plymouth, MA, in 1637 William Bradford created a law that:
“all and every person and persons whatever shall on the lord’s day carefully apply themselves to duties of religion and piety publically and privately, and no tradesman, artificer, laborer or other person whatever shall upon the land or otherwise do or exercise any labor business or work of their ordinary calling, nor engage in any game, sport, play, or recreation on the lord’s day, or any part thereof upon that every person so offending shall forfeit five shillings.”[102]
As you can see from this town record, the puritans a way of doing things, but the above described way of doing things is what I call the old way of the puritan culture. This would change with time and a man named Edmund Andros. The change to culture did not come because the puritans had an epiphany, but because Edmund Andros forced their hand. Yet, before Andros, the puritans and Governor Bradford instilled economic penalties on those who did not conform to the separatist way. Governor Bradford was a detriment to the early forms of baseball.
The issues as it pertains to stool ball and early baseball as well as the puritan’s culture can be answered by referring to Dewey D. Wallace who wrote “acknowledging that the way a culture plays tells us much about that culture, argues that the Puritan tradition harbored ambivalence about play, regarding recreation as both necessary and yet dangerous when excessive, an attitude captured in the phrase sober mirt.”[103] The idea that Puritan tradition held ambivalence about play says that they were more than open to these activities or at least segments of the population were okay with such activities.[104] This segment kept the early baseball alive until Edmund Andros would force the puritan’s hand.
When it comes to the type of entertainment the puritans enjoyed if any, it is best to consult John C. Sommerville who wrote “The very existence of Puritan works of entertainment for children will amount to an historical discovery. Even more surprising will be the evidence that Puritans were far ahead of others in producing such works.”[105] “The Marprelate tracts themselves indicate the form of humor which Puritans would ultimately were able to offer for children, in the figure of the clown. This was not quite what one would expect; wit can be biting, and the Puritan party did produce satirists who could flay the opposition.”[106] This is important because one must understand the culture of the puritans outside religion to follow the stool ball narrative within the context of Plymouth Plantation.
In 1646, during William Bradford’s last stint as Governor of Plymouth Colony, he struck what thankfully wasn’t the final blow to the survival of early baseball. The record reads “complaints having been made to the general court of disorders occasioned by the use of shuffle-board and bowling, in and about Houses of Common entertainment, where by much precious time is spent unprofitably, and much waste of wine and beer occasioned” the court prohibited shuffle-board and bowling or any other play or game in or about any such house under penalty of twenty shillings for the keeper of the house and five shillings for every person who played at said game.”[107]
One of the interesting things about Plymouth, Massachusetts and their recreational habits was that William Bradford in one stroke of a pen tried to limit the towns people’s ability to partake in such activities, but as much as William Bradford’s ideology drives him to be the early villain of baseball, there was an unsuspected hero who forces Governor Bradford’s hand on the issue…Sir Edmund Andros, an English colonial administrator in North America and the governor of the Dominion of New England. Before his service in North America, he served as Bailiff of Guernsey.[108] Shortly after his arrival, Andros asked each of the Puritan churches in Boston if it was meetinghouse could be used for services of the Church of England.[109] When he was rebuffed, he demanded and was given keys to Samuel Willard’s Third Church in 1687.[110] Services were held there under the auspices of Rev. Robert Ratcliff until 1688, when King’s Chapel was built.[111] These actions highlighted him as pro-Anglican in the eyes of local Puritans,[112] who would later accuse him of involvement in a horrid Popish plot.[113] His tenure in New England was authoritarian and turbulent, as his views were decidedly pro-Anglican, a negative quality in a region home too many Puritans.[114] His actions in New England resulted in his overthrow at that time in 1689 Boston revolt.[115] It is funny that Andros became a hero of baseball. I must stress, he was only a hero of baseball for a short time. Never the less, Andros forced the puritan’s hand on sport when he went after the governance on land. Now, this of course was indirectly, but the adjustments the puritans made ended up helping baseball or the early form of the game.
Viola Barnes wrote that Andros had been instructed to bring colonial land title practices more in line with those in England. Edmund Andros introduced quit-rents as a means of raising colonial revenues.[116] Titles previously issued in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine under the colonial administration often suffered from defects of form (for example, lacking an imprint of the colonial seal), and most of them did not include a quit-rent payment.[117] This was where Sir Edmund Andros would seize opportunity and exploit colonists. Edmund Andros’s operation found that land grants in colonial Connecticut and Rhode Island had been made before either colony had a charter, or there were conflicting claims in a number of areas.[118] The manner in which Andros approached the issue was to threaten any landowner whose title was in any way dubious. Some landowners went through the confirmation process, but many refused, since they did not want to face the possibility of losing their land, and they viewed the process as a land grab.[119] The Puritans of Plymouth, Massachusetts, who as individuals had extensive landholdings, were among the latter.[120] This is the area where Edmund Andros helped the game of baseball. By sticking his nose into the puritan’s way of governing of landholdings, he forced the puritan’s hand.
Henry Roscoe wrote that given that all of the existing land titles in Plymouth, Massachusetts had been granted under the now-vacated colonial charter, Andros essentially declared them to have been void, and required landowners to recertify their ownership, paying fees to the dominion and becoming subject to the charging of a quit-rent. Andros attempted to compel the certification of ownership by issuing writs of intrusion,[121] but Viola Barnes wrote that large landowners who owned many parcels (or ‘commons’ as the town record calls it) contested these individually, rather than recertifying all of their land.[122] This is how Andros saved the early form of baseball.
The Puritans answer to keeping their land from Edmund Andros was giving more land grants, but this time the land was for the public or commons (common land). In the town record in 1686 it read:
at this towne (town) meting (meeting) George Bonam Senior in the behalf of himself and several other of the propriators of the meadows at the south meaddows requested liberty of the towne for a common land to be used fore (for) leisure.[123] The common right here refered to was the title to land which it was necessary to defend against the claim of Andros.[124]
The puritans clearly called an audible. The puritans protected their land by giving more land grants. And in a twist, the puritans gave land grants for public use just so they would be able to protect all of their land. Some of this designated public land was designated for use of leisure. This is how Edmund Andros forced the hand of the puritans. This is why Edmund Andros is important to the story of early baseball. It helps explain how the puritans were able to overcome Governor Bradford and make one of the greatest contributions to American culture, far greater than anyone ever thought the puritans made to our society.
Bruce Daniels writes despite the general understanding of sport was contrary to the work of the righteous, the Puritan doctrine of uniting the spirit and the body in a collective health was advocated by William Burkitt, a Puritan theologist, as well as by other Puritan leaders.[125] As Wagner said, Burkitt refers to “lawful recreation” as “both needful and expedient” in the perfecting of the people.[126] Brailsford added scholars recorded in the Standion journal note that as Puritan theology evolved, it was the understanding that the body shifted from an inherently sinful entity to a “neutral” quality of life.[127] The Puritans, therefore, sought a productive and consecrated use of the body.[128] Perry Miller said that this understanding of the body allowed for greater interpretation concerning what was appropriate and what was not.[129] As Bruce Daniels wrote, “Play is ubiquitous psychologists say, because fun is essential in order to do the serious things of life work, survive, reproduce, and live in social groups.”[130] Bruce Daniels goes on to question “Why was it necessary to remind people to persuade them against their instinctive reaction that the religious settlers of colonial New England sought relaxation and pleasure in their lives? Many societies past and present had reputations for restrictive views of the pursuit of pleasure, but few peoples conjure up as strong an image of asceticism as did the Puritans do.”[131]
The Puritans led by Governor William Bradford had a lot of obstacles to overcome in order to deliver the future United States one of the largest contributions any early group of people has made to American culture, and all these obstacles were imposed by their separatists Governor William Bradford. Thanks to the help of people like Edmund Andros and groups like the Wampanoag, who forced them to live in an adjusted way. The biggest obstacle faced by the Puritans, imposed by the villain Bradford, was their strict religion. Paul Seaver put it beautifully “one hand, whether Puritanism is more than a neo-idealist reification of a nonentity, and on the other, whether the early modern middle class is more than a myth, it might be the better part of wisdom to inter the remains of these vexed questions as quietly as possible.[132] What followed was not a perverse attempt to flog a dead horse, if it was dead and a horse, but rather on the basis of a different perspective and different evidence to resurrect a part of what Timothy Breen has called “the non-existent controversy.”[133]
In retaliation to the Puritans and other colonies organizing in town hall meetings and running an “end run” around Edmund Andros, Edmund Andros sought to restrict town meetings, since these were where that protest had begun.[134] Sir Edmund Andros introduced a law that sought to limit town hall meetings by each colony to a single annual meeting.[135] This single town hall meeting was limited for the sole purpose of electing officials, and the law enacted by Edmund Andros explicitly banned the town hall meetings for any other reason or for any other reason.[136] The lack of local power brought about great frustration.[137] Often the protests were organized so that the town meeting and were violations of the Magna Carta.[138] Once backing William Bradford into changing the way land was used to have parts of land for common use such as leisurely activity, all of a sudden, Sir Edmund Andros, Governor of the Dominion of New England, has become a villain to the early survival of baseball.
As the town record reads,
“Att (at) A towne (town) meting (meeting) held att plimouth the 23” day of January 1687, 88 Att this meting an order from his Excellence” was published Whereon he did Require the sd (said) towne of plimouth to appere (appear) before his excellence’ To make out there title to Clarks Island Whereupon a voat (vote) being caled (called) for to know the towns answer The towne haveing (having) Considered thereof do Answer that they are Resolved to defend there Rite (right) in the above sd Hand to there utmost according to law and therefore Chose a Committey Sir Edmund Andros declared the titles of all public lands vested in the crown.[139] The town expended so much money in resisting the claim of Andros to Clark’s Island that it was finally obliged after the accession of William and Mary and the deposition of Andros, to sell the Island.”[140]
This story illustrated not only the origins of baseball, but the origins of a major part of American culture. United States of America’s government and democracy has a lot of British (or English) aspects to the foundation. My project showed that a major cultural aspect of England was a major aspect of American culture today. That it was important because it provides a historical genealogy of American cultural traits. It was much like when Egyptologists use cross-cultural comparisons to hypothesize what the Greeks may have picked up in their culture. American origins, cultures and religions that most impacted the most successful democracy in human history….knowing our countries origins have been important because the United States of America has not been like Europe or Asia, where they have existed in some capacity for 2,000 years. The origins of baseball were just one part of the origins of American culture. So for one, future academic reasons. Secondly, this story was important because it has reflect the contributions of a small colony on a large world power 300 years later, contributions that have largely gone uncredited. This was a story of how a small colony left one of the largest legacies of any group in North American history, but not without help, and not without obstacles. What little scholarship that was out there that talks about recreation in Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620-1692 only confirms that recreation took place and does very little to describe the behind the scenes of Puritan life. Puritan life as it is focused on in scholarly research and by my best judgment were laborious days, religious devotion at night (in general). Thankfully, I have found some scholarly work that does confirm broad recreational participation in Puritan New England. That helps me further my effort with primary sources that illustrate such activities. The problem with the many primary sources in this subject was that Puritans did not go out of the way to write about how often they played stool ball, though it has been mentioned in their writings enough to know the puritans did play such a game.
[1] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[2] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[3] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[4] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[5] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[6] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[7] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[8] Peter A. Piccione Batting the Ball. Copyright 2003-2004 http://piccionep.people.cofc.edu/sekerhemat.html
[9] Peter A. Piccione Batting the Ball. Copyright 2003-2004 http://piccionep.people.cofc.edu/sekerhemat.html
[10] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[11] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[12] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[13] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[14] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[15] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[16] Anchorage Museum. HOME FIELD ADVANTAGE: BASEBALL IN THE FAR NORTH. January 5, 2018. https://www.anchoragemuseum.org/exhibits/home-field-advantage-baseball-in-the-far-north/baseball-in-the-far-north/
[17] “History of Stoolball England”. United Kingdom: Stoolball England. Archived from the original on 2012-05-03. Retrieved 2013-03-20.
[18] “History of Stoolball England”. United Kingdom: Stoolball England. Archived from the original on 2012-05-03. Retrieved 2013-03-20.
[19] ” Block, David (2006). Baseball Before We Knew It: A Search for the Roots of the Game. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 978-0-8032-6255-3.
[20] Tony Collins, John Martin & Wray Vamplew, eds. (2005). The Encyclopedia of traditional British Rural Sports. Routledge Sports Reference.
[21]Block, David (2006). Baseball Before We Knew It: A Search for the Roots of the Game. University of Nebraska Press.
[22] Tony Collins, John Martin & Wray Vamplew, eds. (2005). The Encyclopedia of traditional British Rural Sports. Routledge Sports Reference.
[23] Block, David (2006). Baseball Before We Knew It: A Search for the Roots of the Game. University of Nebraska Press.
[24] Tony Collins, John Martin & Wray Vamplew, eds. (2005). The Encyclopedia of traditional British Rural Sports. Routledge Sports Reference.
[25] Gomme, Alice Bertha (1894). The traditional games of England, Scotland, and Ireland: with tunes, singing-rhymes, and methods of playing according to the variants extant and recorded in different parts of the Kingdom. David Nutt (publisher), London. Archived by archive.org on June 26, 2007
[26] Gomme, Alice Bertha (1894). The traditional games of England, Scotland, and Ireland: with tunes, singing-rhymes, and methods of playing according to the variants extant and recorded in different parts of the Kingdom. David Nutt (publisher), London. Archived by archive.org on June 26, 2007
[27] From a Berkeley manuscript of c.1641 1066 to 1618 printed for subscribers by John Bellows, Gloucester, 1883–1885
[28] OED Online. September 2012. Oxford University Press. 21 September 2012
[29] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[30] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[31] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[32] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[33] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[34] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[35] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[36] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[37] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[38] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[39] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[40] Joseph Strutt the Sports and Pastimes of the People of England,
[41] Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[42] Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[43] Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[44]Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[45] Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[46] Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[47] Beharry, Seelochan (2016). The Prehistories of Baseball (paperback ed.). Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company Inc.
[48] McNeil, William F., The Evolution of Pitching in Major League Baseball, McFarland & Co (2006)
[49] McNeil, William F., The Evolution of Pitching in Major League Baseball, McFarland & Co (2006)
[50] H. L. Mencken, “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy”, from A Book of Burlesques (1916),
[51] H. L. Mencken, “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy”, from A Book of Burlesques (1916),
[52] Gay, Peter (1984), The Bourgeois Experience: The Tender Passion, W. W. Norton & Company, p. 49,
[53] Gay, Peter (1984), The Bourgeois Experience: The Tender Passion, W. W. Norton & Company, p. 49,
[54] Coffin, Charles (1987), The Story of Liberty: So You Will Comprehend What Liberty Has Cost, and What It Is Worth
[55] Coffin, Charles (1987), The Story of Liberty: So You Will Comprehend What Liberty Has Cost, and What It Is Worth
[56] C. Jack Trickler (4 February 2010). A Layman’s Guide To: Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations?. AuthorHouse. p. 146.
[57] C. Jack Trickler (4 February 2010). A Layman’s Guide To: Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations?. AuthorHouse. p. 146.
[58] C. Jack Trickler (4 February 2010). A Layman’s Guide To: Why Are There So Many Christian Denominations?. AuthorHouse. p. 146.
[59] Geoffrey F. Nuttall 15 July 1992. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. University of Chicago Press. p. 9.
[60] Geoffrey F. Nuttall 15 July 1992. The Holy Spirit in Puritan Faith and Experience. University of Chicago Press. p.9.
[61] Eugene Aubrey Stratton, Plymouth Colony: Its History and People, 1620–1691, (Salt Lake City: Ancestry Publishing, 1986), p. 17
[62] Eugene Aubrey Stratton, Plymouth Colony: Its History and People, 1620–1691, (Salt Lake City: Ancestry Publishing, 1986), p. 17
[63] Sprunger, Keith L. “Robinson, John”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.
[64] Thompson, Roger. “Brewster, William”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press.
[65] Michael G. Hall (1 April 1988). The Last American Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather, 1639–1723. Wesleyan University Press. p. 55.
[66] Francis J. Bremer; Tom Webster (2006). Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia
[67] Francis J. Bremer; Tom Webster (2006). Puritans and Puritanism in Europe and America: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia
[68] Plimoth Plantation. Wampanoag children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[69] Plimoth Plantation. Wampanoag children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[70] Plimoth Plantation. Wampanoag children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[71] Plimoth Plantation. Wampanoag children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[72] Plimoth Plantation. Wampanoag children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[73] Plimoth Plantation. Wampanoag children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[74] Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[75] Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[76] Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[77] Salisbury, Neal and Colin G. Calloway, eds. Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience. Vol. 71 of Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (Boston, MA: University of Virginia Press), 1993.
[78] Salisbury, Neal and Colin G. Calloway, eds. Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience. Vol. 71 of Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (Boston, MA: University of Virginia Press), 1993.
[79] Salisbury, Neal and Colin G. Calloway, eds. Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience. Vol. 71 of Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (Boston, MA: University of Virginia Press), 1993.
[80] Salisbury, Neal and Colin G. Calloway, eds. Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience. Vol. 71 of Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (Boston, MA: University of Virginia Press), 1993.
[81] Salisbury, Neal and Colin G. Calloway, eds. Reinterpreting New England Indians and the Colonial Experience. Vol. 71 of Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts. (Boston, MA: University of Virginia Press), 1993.
[82] Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[83] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[84] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[85] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[86] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[87] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[88] Of Plymouth Plantation. William Bradford. Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[89] Plimoth Plantation. Pilgrim children play and learn. Copyright 2003-2018. January 7, 2018. https://www.plimoth.org/learn/just-kids/homework-help/fun-and-games
[90] Of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford
[91] Of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford
[92] Of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford
[93] Of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford
[94] Of Plymouth Plantation William Bradford
[95] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993.
[96] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993.
[97] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993
[98] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993
[99] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993
[100] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993
[101] Weiss, Yoram. “Work and Leisure: A History of Ideas.” Journal of Labor Economics 27, no. 1 (2009): 1-20. doi:10.1086/596993
[102] Annual report of the town of Plymouth, MA 1636-1705 plymouthpubliclibrary; regionaldigitizationmass; americana Town of Plymouth
[103] Wallace, Dewey D. Church History 66, no. 3 (1997): 616-17. Puritans at Play: Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England
[104] Wallace, Dewey D. Church History 66, no. 3 (1997): 616-17. Puritans at Play: Leisure and Recreation in Colonial New England
[105] Sommerville, C. John. “Puritan Humor, or Entertainment, for Children.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 21, no. 2 (1989): 227-47. doi:10.2307/4049927.
[106]Sommerville, C. John. “Puritan Humor, or Entertainment, for Children.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 21, no. 2 (1989): 227-47. doi:10.2307/4049927.
[107] George Francis Dow. Everyday Life in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Dover Publishing. New York, NY 1935, 1988. Ch. 9 Sports and Games.
[108] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar.
[109] Lustig, Mary Lou (2002). The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. pg. 141
[110] Lustig, Mary Lou (2002). The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Pg. 164
[111] Lustig, Mary Lou (2002). The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Pg. 165
[112] Ferguson, Henry (1894). Essays in American History: Sir Edmund Andros. New York: J. Pott. Pg. 141
[113] Price, Benjamin Lewis (1999). Nursing fathers : American colonists’ conception of English Protestant kingship; 1688–1776. Lanham [u.a.]: Lexington Books. p. 69.
[114] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar.
[115] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar.
[116] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. p. 176
[117] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. p. 182
[118] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. p. 187
[119] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. p. 189
[120] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. p. 189–193
[121] Roscoe, Henry (1825). A Treatise on the Law of Actions Relating to Real Property. London: Joseph Butterworth and Son. p. 95
[122] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. p. 199–201
[123] Annual report of the town of Plymouth, MA 1636-1705 plymouthpubliclibrary; regionaldigitizationmass; americana Town of Plymouth
[124] Annual report of the town of Plymouth, MA 1636-1705 plymouthpubliclibrary; regionaldigitizationmass; americana Town of Plymouth
[125] Daniels, B.C. (1993). “Frolics for fun: Dances, weddings, and dinner parties in colonial new England”. Historical Journal of Massachusetts, 21(2): 1–22.
[126] Wagner, P. (1976). “Puritan attitudes toward physical recreation in 17th century new England.” Journal of Sport History, 3(2), 139–151.
[127] Brailsford, D. (1975). “Puritanism and sport in seventeenth century England.” Stadion, 1(2): 316–330.
[128] Brailsford, D. (1975). “Puritanism and sport in seventeenth century England.” Stadion, 1(2): 316–330.
[129] Miller, P. (1939). The new England mind: The seventeenth century. New York: Macmillan.
[130] Daniels, Bruce C. 1991. “Did the Puritans Have Fun? Leisure, Recreation and the Concept of Pleasure in Early New England.” Journal Of American Studies 25, no. 1: 7. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 16, 2017).
[131] Daniels, Bruce C. 1991. “Did the Puritans Have Fun? Leisure, Recreation and the Concept of Pleasure in Early New England.” Journal Of American Studies 25, no. 1: 7. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 16, 2017).
[132] Seaver, Paul. “The Puritan Work Ethic Revisited.” Journal of British Studies 19, no. 2 (1980): 35-53.
[133] Seaver, Paul. “The Puritan Work Ethic Revisited.” Journal of British Studies 19, no. 2 (1980): 35-53.
[134] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. Pg. 97
[135] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. Pg. 97
[136] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. Pg. 97
[137] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. Pg. 97
[138] Barnes, Viola Florence (1960) [1923]. The Dominion of New England: A Study in British Colonial Policy. New York: Frederick Ungar. Pg. 97
[139] Annual Report of the Town of Plymouth 1636-1705. Pg. 192. https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofto1636unse#page/192/mode/2up/search/Andros
[140] Annual Report of the Town of Plymouth 1636-1705. Pg. 192. https://archive.org/stream/annualreportofto1636unse#page/192/mode/2up/search/Andros
Line-up Strategy
Nothing kills rallies faster than a weak spot in your lineup. Baseball coaches that don’t have the luxury of bringing 4 or 5 power hitters to the plate every time through the lineup need to come up with a different way to manufacture runs and keep the offense in sync. Today we will learn how to identify the strengths and weaknesses of hitters in a lineup, and put together a batting order that will produce runs from top to bottom.
Evaluating the Pieces of Your Lineup
The first step to putting together a batting order is to know who your players are, and what they do or don’t do well. This discovery process is a crucial first step to balancing your lineup and improving your baseball team’s offense. There are a few major categories that every offensive player will fall into, and some of the batters in your lineup might fall into more than one category. If a player on your team does more than one thing well, it is important to determine which of those strengths will benefit the team the most. You also have to stress to the player that the success of the team will require the player to do their part and to do it well.
Power Hitters
Every successful offense needs a power hitter in the lineup. This person is a big threat to hit a home run, or at least an extra base hit if they can make contact. Power hitters generally have higher strikeout totals (or at least more swings and misses) which impacts their batting average and on-base percentage in a negative way. Furthermore, the ability to hit the ball a long ways doesn’t usually equate to speed on the basepaths which can turn into a liability if you need to advance a power hitter once they’ve reached base.
Contact Hitters
The name says it all. Contact hitters typically have very low strikeout counts along with typically low power and slugging totals. Contact hitters are very good at putting the bat on the ball, however, so they are extremely useful in hit-and-run or similar situations. Their lack of strikeouts is a benefit in some regards, but putting a contact hitter in the wrong spot in the batting order can actually have a negative effect on your team’s offensive production.
Speedsters
There is typically a lot of overlap between the speedsters and the contact hitters, but there is enough of a distinction between the two to treat them separately. Speedsters are very important to have on base, just because they have a profound effect on the opposing pitchers. The constant threat of a speedster to steal a base can put opposing pitchers out of their rhythm and enhance your team’s ability to score runs. Again, speedsters must be strategically placed in your baseball team’s lineup or they will have little to no positive effect.
Sacrifice Specialists
Let’s face it; no matter what level you are coaching at, there are some players who are in the lineup simply because they have a defensive skill that you can’t live without. These players, when they come up to bat, can be such a risk to kill an inning that you almost don’t even want to have them bat. Hopefully your lineup doesn’t have too many Sacrifice Specialists, but if used properly, they can be a useful asset to scoring more runs.
Your Lineup Top to Bottom
Now that you’ve identified which categories each of the nine batters in your lineup will fall into, it is time to start strategically putting together your offensive lineup to produce maximum results.
#1 Hitter
- Possible Candidate: Contact Hitter, Speedster
The first batter in your lineup is known as your leadoff hitter. If you think about this spot in the lineup logically, you want the player on your team with the highest on-base percentage to occupy this spot. Since a baseball lineup has to go in order, the leadoff spot typically sees more plate appearances per game than anyone else in the lineup. To put it simply, the guy who gets on base at the highest rate should have the most chances to do so. Once the leadoff hitter gets on base, he needs to be able to make some waves, so to speak. Speed in your leadoff spot is key to generating runs at the start of the game.
#2 Hitter
- Possible Candidate: Contact Hitter, Speedster, Sacrifice Specialist
You might think it odd that we would recommend putting a Sacrifice Specialist in this spot, but there is some logic behind it all. If your leadoff hitter reaches first base, you will undoubtedly be looking for a way to get him into scoring position (second or third base). Often times, the best way to do this is by using a sacrifice bunt to move him over. Using a Sacrifice Specialist in the second spot allows you to make a productive out if there is a runner on base. If you don’t choose to have someone sacrifice in the second spot, you will at least need someone who can make contact and stay out of the double play (which is where the speed comes in).
#3 Hitter
- Possible Candidate: Contact Hitter, Power Hitter
I have always been taught that your third place hitter should be the best overall hitter in your lineup. They should be able to hit for power as well as average, making them a rare, but powerful asset when building a strong lineup. Supposing that one or even both of your first two hitters reached base safely, the ability to drive them in to score is crucial at this point. Power hitters are typically great at doing that, whether via home run or extra base hit. It is also important that they are good at making contact with the ball, because the last thing you want with a runner on third and less than 2 outs is a strikeout. When building your baseball lineup, your best hitter should go in the third spot.
#4 Hitter
- Possible Candidate: Power Hitter
The fourth spot (or cleanup spot) should be reserved for the guy on your team with the most pop in their bat. When they swing it’s like a hurricane force wind blowing across the field. You don’t care if they strikeout 200 times a year, because they are going to crush the ball and drive in runs. It can get a little tricky determining if a player should hit in the 3 or 4 spot, but remember, cleanup hitters should be RBI machines and home run hitters, not much else. Save a more rounded hitter for the third spot in your batting order.
#5 Hitter
- Possible Candidate: Power Hitter, Contact Hitter
The fifth spot in the lineup can be just as important as the third or fourth, for one simple fact. The fifth spot in the lineup is there to provide protection for the power hitters in your lineup. If you remember the days of Barry Bonds when he was intentionally walked at least once a game, the opposing team was able to do this because there was nobody in the lineup who could make them pay for putting Bonds on intentionally. A hitter in the fifth spot is there to basically say “hey, if you try to pitch around our cleanup hitter, I will be here to make sure he scores.” It is OK to have a higher than average strikeout count from your fifth hitter, but they shouldn’t be swinging for the fences all the time. In most cases, if your cleanup hitter gets on base, they aren’t much of a threat to steal and will need a base hit to move them along.
#6-8 Hitters
- Possible Candidates: Contact Hitter, Speedster, Sacrifice Specialist
I’m lumping the 6-8 spots in the batting order together, because their purpose is typically all the same: DON’T KILL RALLIES. The sixth hitter in your lineup begins what is referred to as “the bottom of the order” signifying the guys who can’t hit or reach base as well. Your six thru eight hitters probably won’t have an outstanding batting average or on base percentage, but they need to be able to be effective enough to A) not kill rallies, and B) start off an inning strong if needed. In my opinion, batters six-eight are just as important as 1, 2, & 3 which I’m sure needs an explanation. I’m not saying that they should be just as talented as your first three hitters, but that they need to be noticeably better than your opponent’s 6-8 spots in the lineup. Having 3-4 easy outs in a row basically means that the opposing pitcher gets an inning off and also makes it so that the batters in your lineup who are actually decent at sacrificing runners over, won’t have anyone on base to do that for, rendering them virtually useless. Some managers bite the bullet and put a guy who’s numbers say they should be batting higher in the lineup and stick them down in the 6-8 spot, just so they can start/sustain rallies later in the game.
#9 Hitter
- Potential Candidates: Sacrifice Specialist
The last spot in your lineup should be reserved for the worst batter on your team. By definition, they will receive the fewest at-bats out of any spot in the lineup, thus mitigating their ineffectiveness quite a bit. Some managers like Tony LaRussa have gotten a bit more creative with their bottom spot in the order. They try to put a better hitter in that spot in an effort to potentially have someone on base when the lineup flips around and your leadoff spot comes up. I don’t see this often enough to really gauge its effectiveness, but in theory it makes sense. You could almost see your 8 and 9 spot hitters as interchangeable which leaves you more flexibility as a manager.
Hopefully these tips on putting together a batting order will help you get to know your lineup’s strengths and weaknesses a little better. The end result will be more runs and offensive production from your players and more wins from your team. Don’t be afraid to experiment either. Baseball lineups are all about chemistry and finding something that works (even if unorthodox) is ultimately going to make your coaching job a little easier.
PEDs as a Necessary Vice for a Virtuous Baseball Life
In 1889, a baseball player by the name of Pud Galvin was the first player to openly use performance enhancing drugs in a game. He performed so well that the next day the local newspapers said of Galvin’s performance “the best proof yet furnished the value of discovery” (Smith). How is it that one hundred years later society sees this as an immoral act or cheating? Some may say that performance enhancing drugs are the vice around the virtue. A utilitarian may say that the benefit of the whole in this case outweighs the benefit of the few. I intend to explore these angles throughout this paper and will show sufficient evidence that performance enhancing drugs are not as immoral or unethical as one may have thought.
Our good friend Aristotle thought all virtues were means between two vices. A virtue (or a vice), according to Aristotle, is “a trait of character manifested in habitual action.” As a baseball player, a good virtue is to be a good hitter. Well, to be honest your vice is probably steroid addiction. This is not poor virtues because it is virtuous to be a good hitter in baseball and it is only natural to do all you can to be a great hitter. Therefore, it is virtuous to be a baseball player who uses performance enhancing drugs.
One or many skeptics may reply to this by saying that ethically, cheating is wrong and does not make a good virtue. The skeptics may say that a good virtue is a quality characteristic to have that makes you good at something or helps you contribute well to society. Additionally, using drugs in a public role that younger people look to for guidance is not only a bad virtue but creates bad virtues in others.
My response to the skeptics about the argument of virtue ethics and performance enhancing drugs is that the argument for the virtue ethics and performance enhancing drugs is that virtue ethics does not give a decisive answer to this moral issue. Yet it shines light on the matter that sometimes in order to have a virtuous life you need a vice or two in order to live ethically. The virtue of being a good hitter does not just come naturally, yet a vice like performance enhancing drugs gives a baseball player a virtuous life in baseball.
The utilitarian would say, if steroids are legal in baseball than everyone benefits from it. If every player is allowed to use performance enhancing drugs and if 85% of players are using steroids, then the average number of runs per game increases, which is good for the league and the fans. The players would produce at a higher rate, which would have a higher salary pay out for the players and would extend the player’s careers due to consistent production, which would benefit the owners of teams and the players themselves. This would also benefit the fans as they see longer careers from more players that they like. A utilitarian would say it is immoral not to use steroids due the fact that everyone is benefiting from the use of performance enhancing drugs.
A skeptic would reply to that by saying you cannot just pass something off as moral because it benefits a majority of society. In the end, performance enhancing drugs, like steroids, have harmful effects and people must not be encouraged to use them. Also, if performance enhancing drugs benefit the majority of the baseball society, it is easy to forget that steroids and other performance enhancing drugs, like human growth hormones, are so detrimental to the health of the human body. A skeptic would say, something like this is not moral and cannot be encouraged among baseball teams or anyone for that matter.
My response to the skeptics of the utilitarian argument for the morality of performance enhancing drugs in baseball is that the revenue increase and the expected heightened interest in baseball would only benefit everyone. With a higher interest in baseball, jobs like media, public relations, vending, merchandizing, and advertising will start to see healthy growth projections, which benefits everyone that has an interest in a healthy economy. Media jobs will grow in smaller baseball markets and in national press, because with more interest in baseball brings the demand for information. In merchandizing, interest will spawn the increase in sales of team apparel and the more the demand there is for the apparel, the more money that is made for the several companies that made the material that makes the apparel. This in return helps the economy, which helps everyone. With the growth of interest in smaller baseball markets, the attendance will rise and the ownership of the teams will count on a higher average attendance and will buy more food from companies. In return the ownership of the teams will need to hire more ballpark venders to distribute the higher amount of food for the larger number of fans attending the baseball game. With the higher interest in the game would bring about more media attention, which would bring about the demand for more help in public relations for baseball teams. Also, advertising benefits from performance enhancing drugs due the interest it brings to the game. The game will become more marketable and bring more options for baseball players sponsoring companies and products. A baseball team like the Houston Astros, who have not performed very well the last few years, has led to the decrease in fan attention and attendance. Even Major League Baseball has lost interest in the Houston Astros. With performance enhancing drugs, the Houston Astros would have more players who hit for power and average, which would make the team a marketable sponsor. This makes money for the Houston Astros and companies who did not otherwise have a viable sponsor.
Adding on to the previous, when you add all the domino effects of the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball, which all start with the increase in interest in the game, you can see that most, if not all, of the benefits lead to an increase in revenue. When the revenue starts to increase for teams in smaller-markets like Oakland, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Seattle, and Arizona, you start to see more competitive games throughout the league. The amount of losing teams start to decrease and the average number of wins per season for teams individually start to hang close to 81 wins, which is a .500 winning percentage (50%). The increase in revenue makes this happen because these teams can hang on to their good players longer and can afford to get players in free agency when they need them. As you can see, the needs of the many, outweighs the needs of the few.
From virtue ethics to utilitarianism, performance enhancing drugs are a necessary vice for a virtuous baseball life, which tells us that performance enhancing drugs are okay in the eyes of a virtue ethicist. It is immoral to not use performance enhancing drugs when taking society as a whole into consideration, our answer for performance enhancing drugs from a utilitarian’s view tells us that it is wrong not to use these types of drugs in baseball.
Historical Philosophy of Baseball
The way baseball is won today is different from the way it was won in the 1990s or the 1970s and definitely the 1930s, yet the greatest teams were found in early baseball. The feeling that baseball needed a new way of strategy is odd. Here is why.
1927 New York Yankees stats:
| Pos | Player | G | AB | H | Avg. | HR | RBI |
| C | Pat Collins | 92 | 251 | 69 | .275 | 7 | 36 |
| 1B | Lou Gehrig | 155 | 584 | 218 | .373 | 47 | 175 |
| 2B | Tony Lazzeri | 153 | 570 | 176 | .309 | 18 | 102 |
| 3B | Joe Dugan | 112 | 387 | 104 | .269 | 2 | 43 |
| SS | Mark Koenig | 123 | 526 | 150 | .285 | 3 | 62 |
| OF | Earle Combs | 152 | 648 | 231 | .356 | 6 | 64 |
| OF | Babe Ruth | 151 | 540 | 192 | .356 | 60 | 164 |
| OF | Bob Meusel | 135 | 516 | 174 | .337 | 8 | 103 |
| Player | G | AB | H | Avg. | HR | RBI |
| Johnny Grabowski | 70 | 195 | 54 | .277 | 0 | 25 |
| Ray Morehart | 73 | 195 | 50 | .256 | 1 | 20 |
| Cedric Durst | 65 | 129 | 32 | .248 | 0 | 25 |
| Mike Gazella | 54 | 115 | 32 | .278 | 0 | 9 |
| Benny Bengough | 31 | 85 | 21 | .247 | 0 | 10 |
| Ben Paschal | 50 | 82 | 26 | .317 | 2 | 16 |
| Julie Wera | 38 | 42 | 10 | .238 | 1 | 8 |
The strategy here is not a lot of power hitters, yet it is as many high average hitters in the lineup. If your team average is .300 plus, you will bat around a lot.
| Player | G | IP | W | L | ERA | SO |
| Waite Hoyt | 36 | 256.3 | 22 | 7 | 2.63 | 86 |
| Urban Shocker | 31 | 200 | 18 | 6 | 2.84 | 35 |
| Herb Pennock | 34 | 209.7 | 19 | 8 | 3.00 | 51 |
| Dutch Ruether | 27 | 184 | 13 | 6 | 3.38 | 45 |
| George Pipgras | 29 | 166.3 | 10 | 3 | 4.11 | 81 |
| Player | G | IP | W | L | ERA | SO |
| Wilcy Moore | 50 | 213 | 19 | 7 | 2.28 | 75 |
| Myles Thomas | 21 | 88.7 | 7 | 4 | 4.87 | 25 |
| Player | G | W | L | SV | ERA | SO |
| Bob Shawkey | 19 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 2.89 | 23 |
| Joe Giard | 16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8.00 | 10 |
| Walter Beall | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9.00 | 0 |
The point here is the Yankees had 6 pitchers with 10 plus wins and 4 pitchers with 200 plus innings pitched. 8 of the 11 pitchers had at least 20 games played. The idea is maybe we need to expand the length of the rotation to 6 or 7 pitchers. I realize that the 1927 Yankees most likely did not have a 6 man rotation, yet many pitchers got a lot of starts and had a lot of success. They won 110 games.
Another way to win games is to do it the 1971 Baltimore way.
1971 stats:
| Player | G | IP | W | L | ERA | SO |
| Mike Cuellar | 38 | 292.1 | 20 | 9 | 3.08 | 124 |
| Pat Dobson | 38 | 282.1 | 20 | 8 | 2.90 | 187 |
| Dave McNally | 30 | 224.1 | 21 | 5 | 2.89 | 91 |
| Jim Palmer | 37 | 282.0 | 20 | 9 | 2.68 | 184 |
| Player | G | IP | W | L | ERA | SO |
| Grant Jackson | 29 | 77.2 | 4 | 3 | 3.13 | 51 |
| Dave Leonhard | 12 | 54 | 2 | 3 | 2.83 | 18 |
| Player | G | IP | W | L | SV | ERA | SO |
| Eddie Watt | 35 | 39.2 | 3 | 1 | 11 | 1.82 | 26 |
| Pete Richert | 35 | 36.1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 3.47 | 35 |
| Tom Dukes | 28 | 38.1 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 3.52 | 30 |
| Dick Hall | 27 | 43.1 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 4.98 | 26 |
| Dave Boswell | 16 | 24.2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4.38 | 14 |
| Jim Hardin | 6 | 5.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.76 | 3 |
| Orlando Peña | 5 | 14.2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3.07 | 4 |
All 4 starting pitchers are well over 200 innings pitched and have the ERA ranges from 2.68 to 3.08. Also none of them have 10 loses. Look at the relief pitchers and only one pitcher is over 50 innings pitched. The strategy here can be have reliable pitchers and not have to go to the bullpen that much. Also when I get to the hitters you’ll see that the offense is not that great, so the great pitching strategy is very reliant on everything.
| Pos | Player | G | AB | H | Avg. | HR | RBI |
| C | Elrod Hendricks | 101 | 316 | 79 | .250 | 9 | 42 |
| 1B | Boog Powell | 128 | 418 | 107 | .256 | 22 | 92 |
| 2B | Davey Johnson | 142 | 510 | 144 | .282 | 18 | 72 |
| 3B | Brooks Robinson | 156 | 589 | 160 | .272 | 20 | 92 |
| SS | Mark Belanger | 150 | 500 | 133 | .266 | 0 | 35 |
| LF | Don Buford | 122 | 449 | 130 | .290 | 19 | 54 |
| CF | Paul Blair | 141 | 516 | 135 | .262 | 10 | 44 |
| RF | Frank Robinson | 133 | 455 | 128 | .281 | 28 | 99 |
| Player | G | AB | H | Avg. | HR | RBI |
| Merv Rettenmund | 141 | 491 | 156 | .318 | 11 | 75 |
| Andy Etchebarren | 70 | 222 | 60 | .270 | 9 | 29 |
| Chico Salmon | 42 | 84 | 15 | .179 | 2 | 7 |
| Jerry DaVanon | 38 | 81 | 19 | .235 | 0 | 4 |
| Tom Shopay | 47 | 74 | 19 | .257 | 0 | 5 |
| Curt Motton | 38 | 53 | 10 | .189 | 4 | 8 |
| Clay Dalrymple | 23 | 49 | 10 | .204 | 1 | 6 |
| Bobby Grich | 7 | 30 | 9 | .300 | 1 | 6 |
| Terry Crowley | 18 | 23 | 4 | .174 | 0 | 1 |
| Don Baylor | 1 | 2 | 0 | .000 | 0 | 1 |
Offence is okay but you’re going to win games with your pitching.
Possible loop holes in baseball’s rule book
A Strategic, in-depth study of the official rules of baseball, and how they can be exploited for the benefit of winning.
The Objective of the game is to score more runs and the winner of the game is the one who has, in line with all the rules of the game, scored more runs at the end of the game.
- This loop hole can be used like a dirty rag when you are losing a game or have lost a game. The action of the loop hole is to find one or more possible rule infarctions by the other team to gain a win. It does not have to be clear cut, but you must prove that a fine line has been walked.
This loop hole is not clear cut for it clearly that’s words out of context, yet if strategically done right and presented with the right opportunity, you may be able to turn a game 7 loss into a victory.
Loop holes that are not beneficial to your end game must be countered. In order to do something like this, you must find a loop hole to the loop hole. This is what I call a counter loop hole.
“Each umpire has authority to rule on any point NOT SPECIFICALLY COVERED IN THESE RULES.” This loop hole gives the opposition power equal to a dictator and it can be detrimental to your end game. This is the kind of loop hole that counters the above loop hole previously found on the 1st page of the baseball rule book.
“A substitute for the DH need not be announced until it is the DH’s turn to bat.” This rule book flaw can allow you to hide runners in the line-up if strategically thought out correctly.
“A runner may be substituted for the DH and the runner assumes the role of DH. A DH may not pinch-run.” This rule can be used to control the match-ups (pitcher v. hitter; lefty v. righty) eg. A Pinch runner can become the DH; than the now DH can be inserted into the defensive line-up (this will eliminate the DH) when defense is needed and you can selectively pinch hitter for the pitcher every 9 hitters. Without the DH the double switch is available. You get 2 per game. Make this move in the 5th and you’ll only need 2 PH at the most in a 9 inning game. Possiblly 1 PH.
Chapman's Corner 