Gambo and T_Wil1 Photopack

[SDL]

Originally Posted by Terry D

The Brewers had some famously good years in the late 70s and early 80s, thanks of course to a great offense with Yount, Molitor, Cecil Cooper, Ben Oglivie, Simmons, and Gorman Thomas, but even in the best of those years the Brewers pitching was never more than fairly good. The organization just did not produce many good pitching prospects, and when the offense collapsed in '84 the pitching couldn't cover. The Brewers did bring up some young arms around then, including Bob Gibson, Chuck Porter, Jaime Cocanower, and Tom Candiotti, but Gibson wasn't much like the real Bob Gibson, Porter got hurt, and Cocanower never mastered his control. Candiotti was dumped on Cleveland, where he took up the knuckler and became a good pitcher. Andy Beene was another of this group. A very tall guy who could throw pretty hard, Beene was not really much of a prospect; his AAA ERA was 4.70, and his control was marginal (145 BB, 163 SO). He made a few appearances for the Brewers in 83 and 84 and was shelled for a 10.45 ERA. A black and white photo (headshot) has been out there for a while, but here is a pretty good color shot. This is from ebay seller sportsfromthepastinc (SFTP).

His uncle Fred had a pretty good career too

[cinemaodyssey]

Wise was the primary starting pitcher for the 1884 Washington Nationals of the Union Association. Here he is pictured on the 1883 Washington Nationals.

[cinemaodyssey]

Evers was the starting 2nd Baseman on the 1884 Washington Nationals of the Union Assocation. He was also the Uncle of Hall of Famer Johnny Evers.

[dennis_keith]

I would like to see what the uniform of the 1902 Phillies looked like. Could anyone post photos of any Phillies player from that year?

[krantzbucks]

Originally Posted by dennis_keith

I would like to see what the uniform of the 1902 Phillies looked like. Could anyone post photos of any Phillies player from that year?

Try this website if you havent already.
http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.o...s/database.htm

[Merkle923]

Unless the primary ID is mistaken, this is not just a shot of the scene just seconds before the most infamous play in baseball history, but evidence that the most famous photographer in baseball history was there - and missed the shot of the most infamous play in baseball history.

A SABR member named Alex Cheremeteff who spends a lot of time on photos posted this on Twitter yesterday. Origin: a collection of photos by the famed Charles Conlon in the Ernie Harwell Collection at the Detroit Public Library. Marked on the reverse only as "Frank Chance 1908."

I've been studying the Merkle game since I was a teenager and even then (and well before) it was conceded that there were no known images of the game itself. They might have proved invaluable into the National League investigation of the play (which was so serious and so traumatic that it eventually pushed the N.L. president over the edge, and to suicide). There was one photo published in a non-sports magazine a few weeks later, but that seemed to be taken from the stands at the Polo Grounds right after the Merkle play occurred and showed what looks like the aftermath of the crazed spectacle that had broken out (I'll spare you the details; done justice they merit a few hundred pages).

But Cheremeteff was struck by the image of the Giant player here. He's convinced it's Merkle and so am I. The nose is the giveaway. In any event, the photo certainly can only date to 1908 (the only year the Giants wore a dark cap at home with the simple version of the "NY" on the sleeve; the only year the Cubs wore those road pinstripes with dark undershirts or sweatshirts). That's clearly the Polo Grounds (it's an unusual angle for photography at the park, but that ad for "Luna Park" is the clincher - that was an over-the-top amusement park in Coney Island that opened in 1903).

So if it's 1908 and we're in New York and that's Fred with Frank Chance, Cheremeteff determined that there were only two times all year Merkle would have been reached first - and both were during the world-changing game of September 23. The first was when he walked in the 3rd to give the Giants runners on first and second - and to give Chance no reason to hold him on the bag. The second was when Merkle's two-out single sent Harry McCormick to third base with the potential winning run in the bottom of the ninth of the 1-1 tie.

Of course, Chance shouldn't be holding him on the bag here, either. His run is meaningless. But there are three considerations: the next batter, Al Bridwell, was left-handed; Bridwell recalled seeing Merkle taking too long a lead off first and had to step out and wave him back to the bag; and we may actually be seeing Chance coming off the bag to increase his possibility for lateral motion in case Bridwell pulled the ball sharply.

So here's the kicker. Bridwell connected on the first pitch, scoring McCormick and sending Merkle not to second but to the Giants' clubhouse, which required a hard right somewhere before he got to the next base, and sending them all into infamy when the Cubs convinced the umpires to call him out and nullify the run in this game with the two teams virtually tied for first place.

And Charles Conlon missed it.

If he photographed Merkle inching off the bag in the bottom of the ninth on September 23, 1908, he had to have almost immediately thereafter closed up his heavy, cumbersome camera and begun to move off the field just as Bridwell singled. While the most famous rhubarb in sports history unfolded, Conlon had to have been moving away from it, trying to lug the camera and the glass plates he had exposed that day safely off the field.

Bridwell's hit, Merkle not reaching second, McCormick scoring, the crowd pouring out of the stands, the Cubs refusing to leave the field, the Giants dragging Merkle back from the clubhouse to touch second, rival pitchers Joe McGinnity and Floyd Kroh wrestling for the ball, McGinnity throwing it into the stands, Johnny Evers somehow producing a new baseball and tagging second with it, umpires Hank O'Day and Bob Emslie ruling an hour later that Merkle was out - Conlon missed it the way those folks in the parking lot that you see suddenly jamming on their brake lights in highlights of Game 1 of the 1988 World Series missed Kirk Gibson's homer.

So not only is this an image from "the Merkle game" taken just seconds before the most dissected play in history but it suggests that the story that there are no photos of it isn't just wrong, it may have been deliberate. Because if you're Charles Conlon, do you really want anybody to know "Oh, yeah, I photographed that game but I left with two out in the bottom of the ninth"?

[Merkle923]

For what it's worth, here's a photo of the other photo from the "Merkle" game.

I cut this out of a 1908 non-sports weekly, can't remember which, 30+ years ago, to frame up with The New York Times account of the game (which incredibly begins with "Censurable stupidity on the part of player Merkle...)

This presumably is the next shot Conlon could've gotten after he left the field from foul territory near first base, just as chaos was erupting. Each image required a lot of physical work and was as inconceivable to the photographers of 1995 as the demands of 1995 are to smart phone/camera operators today. As much as this suggests Conlon had almost as bad a day as Fred Merkle on 9/23/1908, it should remind us how skilled and anticipatory he was to get shots like the famous shot of Ty Cobb sliding into third against Jimmy Austin.

The Merkle tag is wishful thinking. I haven't gone over every pixel here but I don't see any players and I suspect this could have been taken after the post-game drama had concluded, maybe 15-30 minutes after Bridwell's hit seemingly had won the game.

[Jerry Helper]

Originally Posted by Merkle923

Unless the primary ID is mistaken, this is not just a shot of the scene just seconds before the most infamous play in baseball history, but evidence that the most famous photographer in baseball history was there - and missed the shot of the most infamous play in baseball history.

A SABR member named Alex Cheremeteff who spends a lot of time on photos posted this on Twitter yesterday. Origin: a collection of photos by the famed Charles Conlon in the Ernie Harwell Collection at the Detroit Public Library. Marked on the reverse only as "Frank Chance 1908."

I've been studying the Merkle game since I was a teenager and even then (and well before) it was conceded that there were no known images of the game itself. They might have proved invaluable into the National League investigation of the play (which was so serious and so traumatic that it eventually pushed the N.L. president over the edge, and to suicide). There was one photo published in a non-sports magazine a few weeks later, but that seemed to be taken from the stands at the Polo Grounds right after the Merkle play occurred and showed what looks like the aftermath of the crazed spectacle that had broken out (I'll spare you the details; done justice they merit a few hundred pages).

But Cheremeteff was struck by the image of the Giant player here. He's convinced it's Merkle and so am I. The nose is the giveaway. In any event, the photo certainly can only date to 1908 (the only year the Giants wore a dark cap at home with the simple version of the "NY" on the sleeve; the only year the Cubs wore those road pinstripes with dark undershirts or sweatshirts). That's clearly the Polo Grounds (it's an unusual angle for photography at the park, but that ad for "Luna Park" is the clincher - that was an over-the-top amusement park in Coney Island that opened in 1903).

So if it's 1908 and we're in New York and that's Fred with Frank Chance, Cheremeteff determined that there were only two times all year Merkle would have been reached first - and both were during the world-changing game of September 23. The first was when he walked in the 3rd to give the Giants runners on first and second - and to give Chance no reason to hold him on the bag. The second was when Merkle's two-out single sent Harry McCormick to third base with the potential winning run in the bottom of the ninth of the 1-1 tie.

Of course, Chance shouldn't be holding him on the bag here, either. His run is meaningless. But there are three considerations: the next batter, Al Bridwell, was left-handed; Bridwell recalled seeing Merkle taking too long a lead off first and had to step out and wave him back to the bag; and we may actually be seeing Chance coming off the bag to increase his possibility for lateral motion in case Bridwell pulled the ball sharply.

So here's the kicker. Bridwell connected on the first pitch, scoring McCormick and sending Merkle not to second but to the Giants' clubhouse, which required a hard right somewhere before he got to the next base, and sending them all into infamy when the Cubs convinced the umpires to call him out and nullify the run in this game with the two teams virtually tied for first place.

And Charles Conlon missed it.

If he photographed Merkle inching off the bag in the bottom of the ninth on September 23, 1908, he had to have almost immediately thereafter closed up his heavy, cumbersome camera and begun to move off the field just as Bridwell singled. While the most famous rhubarb in sports history unfolded, Conlon had to have been moving away from it, trying to lug the camera and the glass plates he had exposed that day safely off the field.

Bridwell's hit, Merkle not reaching second, McCormick scoring, the crowd pouring out of the stands, the Cubs refusing to leave the field, the Giants dragging Merkle back from the clubhouse to touch second, rival pitchers Joe McGinnity and Floyd Kroh wrestling for the ball, McGinnity throwing it into the stands, Johnny Evers somehow producing a new baseball and tagging second with it, umpires Hank O'Day and Bob Emslie ruling an hour later that Merkle was out - Conlon missed it the way those folks in the parking lot that you see suddenly jamming on their brake lights in highlights of Game 1 of the 1988 World Series missed Kirk Gibson's homer.

So not only is this an image from "the Merkle game" taken just seconds before the most dissected play in history but it suggests that the story that there are no photos of it isn't just wrong, it may have been deliberate. Because if you're Charles Conlon, do you really want anybody to know "Oh, yeah, I photographed that game but I left with two out in the bottom of the ninth"?

This is fascinating! It’s so cool that new information like this can come out over 100 years later!

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by dennis_keith

I would like to see what the uniform of the 1902 Phillies looked like. Could anyone post photos of any Phillies player from that year?

The Chicago Daily News archives has a few photos of Phillies' players in Chicago that are believed to be from 1902. Here are a couple; both are identified as Chick Fraser in the archives, but the second photo is someone else (Fraser may be the player on the right watching the pitcher warm up):

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by dennis_keith

I would like to see what the uniform of the 1902 Phillies looked like. Could anyone post photos of any Phillies player from that year?

1902 Cy Vorhees in home uniform with bull terrier

[dennis_keith]

Thanks to RU Ken for sheading light on my question.
I like the center buttoning flap that was rather modern for it's time and the big P on the left side of the shirt in the Chick
Fraser photo. The wide belt and the uniform pants wore high, just below the knees make for a rather spiffy, modern appearance.
The caps though without an initial P on them for Philadelphia, and the odd shape of the cap itself was more rooted in 19th Century baseball.
Thanks a lot!
Chick Fraser, by the way went 175-212 in a 14 year career that ended in 1909. That might not seem like much, but you actually have to be pretty good just to have the opportunity to lose 212 games.

[cinemaodyssey]

I came across this team photo, labeled as the 1890 Portland team, and thought that I'd spend some time trying to figure out who the players are. Unfortunately the source from which the photo came from did not include any indication of who was pictured.
If anyone can help me at least identify the Major League players in here, that would be a great help.
I have identified Bill Hassamaer in the back row, third from the left, and I suspect that future big league pitcher Tom Parrott is holding the ball in the middle row. That's all I have so far.

[hobbs11]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Wow, I feel as though I should be better prepared…

Mets in color (my team has been photographed a lot, but if we can upgrade some of the B/Ws to color, I'm in favor of it).

Amado Samuel, 1964


Again, thank you very much.

Not sure if you ever located one in color of Amado....

[Cusick]

Looks to me like Bill Whitrock is fourth from left in the back row. Tnfoto had posted a photo of Whitrock back in 2010 on the following page:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...84046&page=261

Jiggs Parrott probably played enough games for Portland in 1890 that he would be in this photo, but unfortunately the only images of Jiggs for comparison are woodcuts or drawings. Makes it difficult to figure out which one he might be.

Attached is a photo of Patsy Cahill from the book ALWAYS ON SUNDAY: THE CALIFORNIA BASEBALL LEAGUE 1886 TO 1915. It shows him with the 1883 Haverly team. In comparing him with the 1890 Portland photo, I think he may be the player in the top row at the far right, but I'm far from certain about it. Cahill was 5'7.5" in height, so he would fit in that regard.

[Veltman26]

The first words of this post are "Unless the primary ID is mistaken" - and there's absolutely no reason to believe that the primary ID is correct. I'm not at all convinced that the baserunner is Merkle; it looks more like another 1908 Giants rookie named Buck Herzog, which would explain why Conlon didn't bother to identify him. And Chance is holding the baserunner on, which would make perfect sense if it's not the Merkle game. Where is the evidence that Conlon was photographing this famous game? Not in the photo, that's for sure. Everything that follows from this extraordinarily shaky assumption falls apart immediately if it's a regular season game.

This alleged discovery is a textbook example of "confirmation bias" - the tendency to search for, interpret, and favor new evidence in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. I agree that it would be extremely cool if this were indeed Fred Merkle, but unfortunately, all of our overheated fantasies can't be true!

[cinemaodyssey]

Originally Posted by Veltman26

This alleged discovery is a textbook example of "confirmation bias" - the tendency to search for, interpret, and favor new evidence in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. I agree that it would be extremely cool if this were indeed Fred Merkle, but unfortunately, all of our overheated fantasies can't be true!

By the same logic, you have come to similar conclusions with no proof to back up your claims that it is Herzog...just that it looks more like him. There is really no need to denigrate what could be a significant historical find, especially on your first day here and in your first post.

[cinemaodyssey]

Originally Posted by Cusick

Looks to me like Bill Whitrock is fourth from left in the back row. Tnfoto had posted a photo of Whitrock back in 2010 on the following page:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...84046&page=261

Jiggs Parrott probably played enough games for Portland in 1890 that he would be in this photo, but unfortunately the only images of Jiggs for comparison are woodcuts or drawings. Makes it difficult to figure out which one he might be.

Attached is a photo of Patsy Cahill from the book ALWAYS ON SUNDAY: THE CALIFORNIA BASEBALL LEAGUE 1886 TO 1915. It shows him with the 1883 Haverly team. In comparing him with the 1890 Portland photo, I think he may be the player in the top row at the far right, but I'm far from certain about it. Cahill was 5'7.5" in height, so he would fit in that regard.

UKbaseballfan has also proposed that George McVey is seated on the far left and the Parrott brothers are seated side by side, Jiggs on the left and Tom on the right. I tend to agree with those ID's.

[Veltman26]

Originally Posted by cinemaodyssey

By the same logic, you have come to similar conclusions with no proof to back up your claims that it is Herzog...just that it looks more like him. There is really no need to denigrate what could be a significant historical find, especially on your first day here and in your first post.

My apologies for ruffling your feathers on my first day here.


Yes, I have exactly as much proof as Merkle923 - which was precisely my point! Yes, it could be a significant historical find, and it could be a big nothing, but thus far I'm not convinced. Looks like Herzog's chisel chin to me, but we'll see...


By the way, speaking of needless denigration, was it really necessary for Merkle923 to invent an elaborate scenario denigrating the reputation of Charles M. Conlon - based on zero evidence? We've got a new goat at the Merkle game, it seems. That was the "overheated fantasy" I was referring to, but I guess you missed it.


This is my second post. I sincerely hope it meets with your approval.

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by Veltman26

The first words of this post are "Unless the primary ID is mistaken" - and there's absolutely no reason to believe that the primary ID is correct. I'm not at all convinced that the baserunner is Merkle; it looks more like another 1908 Giants rookie named Buck Herzog, which would explain why Conlon didn't bother to identify him. And Chance is holding the baserunner on, which would make perfect sense if it's not the Merkle game. Where is the evidence that Conlon was photographing this famous game? Not in the photo, that's for sure. Everything that follows from this extraordinarily shaky assumption falls apart immediately if it's a regular season game.

This alleged discovery is a textbook example of "confirmation bias" - the tendency to search for, interpret, and favor new evidence in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. I agree that it would be extremely cool if this were indeed Fred Merkle, but unfortunately, all of our overheated fantasies can't be true!

While I wouldn't say that there is "no reason" to believe that the player is Merkle, I have been very skeptical since the photo was posted. Merkle had a very youthful face in 1908, unlike the baserunner in the photo. I've posted his Carl Horner portrait below.

A photo of Herzog from 1908 in the Chicago Daily News archives (on the left, below) does look similar to the player in the Chance photo, though the angle is not exactly the same and the resolution is poor. I think it's fair to discuss whether the baserunner is Herzog rather than Merkle:

[okcochise]

What other name(s) have you posted under prior to this? I find it hard to believe that you created a profile never having posted here before just to go after one of our members. Funny, even with newly created names, it's hard to remain incognito; behaviors cannot hide behind new names. A shame there isn't something that can be done to block members from creating multiple profiles.

Originally Posted by Veltman26

My apologies for ruffling your feathers on my first day here.


Yes, I have exactly as much proof as Merkle923 - which was precisely my point! Yes, it could be a significant historical find, and it could be a big nothing, but thus far I'm not convinced. Looks like Herzog's chisel chin to me, but we'll see...


By the way, speaking of needless denigration, was it really necessary for Merkle923 to invent an elaborate scenario denigrating the reputation of Charles M. Conlon - based on zero evidence? We've got a new goat at the Merkle game, it seems. That was the "overheated fantasy" I was referring to, but I guess you missed it.


This is my second post. I sincerely hope it meets with your approval.