The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1909-07-20
BY BILL AK.

they changed their minds.
And in the NINTH when the Barons
had lead of four runs. the Mobile Sea
Gulls, taking advantage of several bad
breaks on our part. hammered six runs
over the pan. In our half of the ninth
Otis Stockdale. the old veteran on whom
Mobile asked waivers last February. as
sumed command of the Gulls, and slow
ly crushed our life out
And thus was enacted another miserable
failure.
But there has been even worse than
that which happened yesterday. Last
April down in Montgomery the Barons
assumed a lead of five runs Eugene
Ford was twirling for Birmingham and
prior to the eighth inning he had every
thing in the world. The sleepers were
beaten to a FRAGILE.
Then occurred the ascension. The
sleeping" brigade hammered Ford from
the hill and hammered the man who sue
ceeded him. When the dust was cleared
away they had netted eight runs.
AT that time we thought
We'll, such a game as this can hap
pen but once a year."
1t was pretty tough to lose that fight
yesterday, however. Everybody was in
a fine frame of mind. The Barons played
with spirit. They felded brilliantly, ran
bases like deer, and hit the ball timely.
They used their brain.
The fans rallied to the support of the
team and their cheers were re-echoed all
over the field There was an absence of
the old derision, the old anvil chorus,
the old hammering.
The stockholders, owners, directors,
manager and all others connected with
the throne" work of the aggregation,
stretched thmselves in great content and
even waxed chesty.
And it was hard that this pleasant sit
uation was turned topsy-turvy.
We lost our good humors in about %
seconds, and not a kind word was said
for an hour after the game.
There are still, you know, some peo-
pie who take baseball seriously.
What caused the defeat of the Barons
after they had gained such a lead and
after they had played the visitors off
the board? Was it Indifferent work? Was
it the result of umpire decisions2 Was
1t lack of prompt action on the part of
Wordsworth in removing Fleharty, or did
he err in removing him after all seemed
lost? Should Raub have caught the third
strike on Neighbors, or was the ball
pitched wildly? Did Neighbors take adj
vantage of a wild pitch and thus gain
first? Did the game go glimmering be-
cause Raftis, overlooking a forced play
at third, ran down the Sea Gull, in
stead of touching third and attempting
% Wad 1dh r a
cause he failed to curve them over to
Sabrie for fear of walking him and fore
ing one man across? Or did hard luck
take a hand?
Figure it out as you like. We lost it
in some fashion at any rate.
Fqeharty walked the first man up in
the ninth. He then walked the second.
Rhoton, third up, hit to Raftis, and Nc
Cay was out at third. Neighbors then
famed, but got to first because the third
strike was not caught Watson flied to
Bowen Sabrie faced Fleharty for FIVE
minutes. There were three balls and two
strikes. He fouled half dozen straight
ones heaved over, and then smashed one
to center, two men registering. Dickson
here relieved Fleharty. Thornton and
Fritz were sent in to hit for Ludwig and
Schultz and both singled. At this time
the score was tied with Gulls still on
second and third. Watson then singled
and two others counted. McCay then
retired the side on strike out.
The Barons made three fine doubles
during the game. Mobile got one. Fle-
harty until the ninth was in marvellous
form His curved ball broke beautifully.
The pinch hitting of the Gulls in the
ninth featured the game, while Bowen
took the honors for individual excellence.