The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-08-03
BY w. j. MACBETH.

BY International News Service.
"A TEW YORK. Aug. 2.-One Of the
mi great baseball wonders Of the
VI present generation is the infield
of the Athletics. For tho past
season or two it has come to be known
as "Connie Mack S 100000 quar-
tette.' This redoubtable inner line has
drawn its mead of praise. Some en-
thusiasts have gone SO far as to de.
clare it the greatest collection ever de-
veloped by the game.
There is no denying the fact that
the inner defense Of Connie Mack s
pennant trust is of sufficient class to
suit the fancy of the most discerning
public. Undoubtedly the great Ath-
letic four overtop anything IN the
game at present for all round efficien-
cy. To say, however. that they are
the greatest the game has ever known
is making very strong statement and
to widespread argument.
Players Are Young.
The entire Athletic infield is young
and vigorous and not likely to pass out
for some years But pass it must with
time, and then whatever infield hap.
pens to possess the most class OF that
future period when McInnis, Collins,
Barry and Baker are no more will un.
doubtedly be awarded the pedestal
above the sacred memory of the fallen
itself. Sentiment figures not the
present, leaving the dead past to the
memories Of its declining veterans.
To begin with, there is absolutely no
manner in which just comparisons be-
tween past and present may be made.
Baseball has progressed. It's evolution
has entailed many changes in every
phase of the game. The rules are not
what they were. The ball itself is not
constructed exactly the same. Present
day players have an equipment. of ar
tificial aids undreamed in the days of
a number of the old timers still with
us. 1t is as idle to make comparisons
between the past and present of base
ball as it would in any line of sport
or life or work. 1t is easy enough to
say that John l.. Sullivan in his prime
would have knocked the everlasting
daylights out of Jack johnson as he
stood the day he conquered Jeffries.
fine subject for debate, But how
prove anything7 Unfortunately Sulli-
van and johnson were of different pe-
riods.
Impossible to Judge.
The only possible manner in which
the Athletic quartette might gain such
distinction as some admirers would
thrust upon it would be for it to main.
tain it's dignity on the field of action
against the classy aggregations Of the
past. That, of course, is somewhat i'm.
practicable. But for little argument,
we do not have to turn back history's
page very far to get an infiield that
that of Philadelphia. How about that
old Cub machine-Chance, Evers, Tin
ker and Steinfeldt? Eight years ago
it was heralded as the greatest defen-
sive machine of all history Just as some
other collection will be hailed eight
years hence, maybe.
Personally I do not think the Cub in
field was greater than that Of the Ath-
letics, but some very wise baseball men
cared to argue should concede Con.
ME Mack s the palm on hitting power.
Collectively. the Athletics have more
speed than the renowned Cubs, are less
flashy. perhaps, In the field, but every
bit as strong defensively.
John j. McGraw is a great admirer
of the Athletics. He is broad-minded
enough to realize that true comparison
is out of the question, save, perhaps,
with the Cubs. I do not think Mac IS
opinion has changed a great deal since
the world s series of 1911. / saw him
shortly after the final game and he
was loud in his praises of his con-
querers.
'fI do not know whether the Ath-
letic in6eld played above its true
form in this series,' said McGraw,
"hut if not. it is one of the most won