|
August 16, 2006
Baseball Lawsuit c. 1906
In the August 16, 1906 NYT is an interesting article describing how : the New York National League Baseball Club [the NY Giants] brought suit against the Chicago National League Baseball club [the Chicago Cubs] for $3,500, alleging damages to that extent on account of the forfeited game of Aug. 7, when Umpire Johnstone was refused entrance to the Polo Grounds and gave the game to Chicago. Manager McGraw of New York wanted the game to be played with player from each of the teams as umpires, but the Chicago manager refused to agree to this, and the Ne York management now declares the club is damaged to the extent of the club is damaged to the extent of $3,500....The damages are said to lie in the loss of gate receipts. Wait a second. New York bars an umpire, the game is forfeited to Chicago, and New York sues Chicago for damages? Going back to the Aug. 8, 1906 NYT, here's what evidently happened. Johnstone umpired a game between Chicago and New York on the previous day [Monday, Aug. 6] and ordered "Manager McGraw and Third Baseman Devlin out of the game. McGraw and Devlin received their notices of official suspension yesterday [Aug. 7] , and the action against Johnstone by the local club came immediately after...The New York Club officials refused to admit the umpire to the grounds, and he promptly declared the game forfeited to Chicago by the customary score of 9 to 0...Police Inspector Sweeney had requested the New York Club not to allow Umpire Johnstone to enter the grounds, as after threats against him it might precipitate a riot...For a time 8,000 spectators massed in front of the entrances and would not leave the grounds. Many of them were appeased with the announcement, however, that all reserved seat checks and rain checks would be good for any other game this season, and a subsequent announcement was made...that money would be refunded on all checks upon presentation at the office of the New York Club... It seems that McGraw argued that if there was to be any forfeit it should have been the Cubs that forfeited to the Giants. This was because, according to the rules at the time, if an umpire was absent or unable to perform his duties, an agreed-upon individual chosen by the home team could substitute. McGraw claims he had a substitute ready to go at 5 minutes before 4pm (the start of the game) and the Cubs were the ones who walked away. Therefore, the Cubs should forfeit. One wonders if this means that if the Cubs had forfeited the refunds would not have been offered by the Giants. Back to the $3,500 claim, the price of admission to the Polo Grounds in 1906 was $0.50. This would imply an actual gate of 7,000 people versus the estimated 8,000 people (assuming all tickets were redeemed for a refund or another game). The attendance figures available in the Retrosheet.org game logs from 1906 indicate an average attendance at the Polo Grounds in 1906 of 7,200 with a standard deviation of 3,000 (albeit on only eight games). Posted by Craig Depken at 01:11 PM in Sports
|
The statesman who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. -Adam Smith
Our Bloggers
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Craig Depken Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden Noel Campbell
Search
Archives
By Author:
Joshua HallRobert Lawson E. Frank Stephenson Michael C. Munger Lawrence H. White Edward Bierhanzl Craig Depken Ralph R. Frasca Tim Shaughnessy Edward J. Lopez Brad Smith Mike DeBow Wilson Mixon Art Carden Noel Campbell
By Month:
February 2012January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004
Powered by
Site design by |