Evening star., 1915-04-29

Never mind, my boys, Wen fix you
next year" That was the threat hurled
at me from the Brooklyn players
bench in the late nineties. Ned
Hanlon, then manager of the su-
perbas, was the speaker and he sure
did have it in for yours truly. The
reason for his threat and anger was
the habit / had of hitting fouls, writes
Ray Thomas in the Philadelphia
Ledger.
Well, Hanlon. in addition to bossing
the Brooklyn club, was member OF
the rules committee of the National
League, and he made good his threat
or, it might be better to say. he ac-
complished what he set about to do.
He had incorporated in the rules the
famous foul strike rule about which
SO much has been said and written.
Probably some of the younger genera
tion of fans and players do not remem-
Der the days before the foul strike rule.
Prior to 1901 there was no such thing
as foul strike A batsman was per-
mitted to stand at the plate and hit
many fouls as he could. OF course,
If a foul was caught. the batsman was
out. But the clever players did not
often hit the kind that could be caught.
The catcher in those days was per
mitted to stand many feet back of the
plate, if he so desired. where he could
catch the high fouls. too-at least.
those that he could get under. The
eatcher invariably did stand back
from the plate until there was a man
on base or two strikes on the bats1nan.
When the backstop was way back.
without mask and'windpad to handicap
the flight of foul ball and get under
Dit. And yet I sometimes wonder
whether the catchers of today, despite
the fact that they have to discard
back or to one side, do not catch as
many foul flies as did the backstops
prior to 1901 1t would make an In
teresting study for statisticians. II they
could get at any definite figures about
IT
Catcher Comes Up.
But when the foul strike rule was
put IN tho books in 1901. and the first
TWO fouls were ruled strikes, the catch
er also was compelled to stand continu-
ously under the bat And IL IL about
the foul strike rule and the reasons for
II that was asked TO write.
To return to Ned HanIon and his
threat. suppose the Brooklyn manager
had good reason to be sore that day
] was playing with the Phillies and had
Bilr' Kennedys fast ones. 1t was
nothing new to me to come In contact
with peevish managers. for there were
several other days when I had done
some fouling.
But the astute manager of the Troll
ley Dodgers, as the Brooklyns were
then called. did not figure exactly righ,
on results. For instance. II four OF
hve men have the ability to foul off
balls purposely and a rule Is passed tc
make the first two fouls strikea who
is getting the worst of it--those four OF
i've fellows or the six,y-odd batsmen
who only foul occasionally?
As a matter Of fact. the first year the
the great Delehanty. 1t was the only
year when we were playing together
that 1 finished ahead of him, and wal
the best batting year I ever had as q
big Lacquer That would make 1t ap.
pear that Hanlon'a carrying out of hi.
threat did not do me a whole lot OF
harm.
McGraw Was "Fouler."
The rule helped tho pitchers some ant
uuickened the game little. but not a.
much as It was expected to. for tn.
himple reason that virtually all Of tn.
Intentional fouling was done with tn,
count three balls and two strikes, ant
the rule today is not operative aftel
the batsman has two strikes on him.
1t will easily be seen that the mar
who tried to foul Intentionally will
the count three and two had two OBJ
Jects in mind: First. to spoil the goot
ones and then let q bad one" go by
the result being a base on balls: sec
ond, to tire the pitcher.