San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1923-09-30
Snyder's Work Far Sur
passed Schang's in 1921
and 1922-Those Who
Count on Yankees ST.
perior Pitching Staff
Might Ponder on This.
By GEORGE CHADWICK.

New York, Sept. 2e.-Week after
next will see the beginning of world
series and already many of the ex-
perts are handing out the same old
advance dope that "a world series de-
ponds upon the pitchers"
How about the catchers? Has any
one ever given thought to the fact
that the winning team in just about
every world series has had catching
betters than the other teaU?
Has it occurred to the browsing
fan who eats the dope and digests
it that no one ever brought to his at
tention 2the Truth that good boss be-
hind the bat was almost, if not quite,
as good as a fine thrower of the ball
in the pitchers station?
The fan has not been so informed.
So here's for the information.
Beginning with 1905 when the
world series was born, who was the
supreme catcher, Brcsnahan of the
Giants, or Powers or Schrecksngost
of the Athletics? 1t was Bresna-
han.
Same Story Throughout.
In 1906 Billy Sullivan of the White
Sox was a more polished and better
catcher that year than Johnny Killing
of the Cubs.
In 1907 Killing had improved and
more than matched Stanage of De-
troit. In 1908 he also outplay ed
Schmidt of Detroit.
George Gibson of Pittsburg caught
better than either Schmidt or Stan
age of Detroit in 1909.
Very probably 1910 furnished the
exception that proves the rule be-
cause who can say that Ira Thomas
or Jack Lapp was a better catcher
than Johnny Kline was then? The
Cubs lost to the Athletics because
they went into the series in anything
but the proper frame. of mind and
condition.
In. 1911 Thomas and Lapp of the
Athletics were fully as good or bet
ter than Chief Meyers and Wilson
Of the Giants. The Indian was never
great world series catcher.
At Least No Worse.
In 1912 Carrigan and Cady of Bos-
ton may have been no better than
Meyers and Wilson of the Giants but
certainly they were no worse.
In 1913 Larry Mclean probably
caught better for the Giants than the
Athletics catchers, but New York
had no team. In 1914 Gowdy caught
all around Schang of the Athletics.
In 1915 Cady and Thomas were bet
ter catchers for Boston than Burns
was for the Philadelphia Nationals.
In 1916 the Boston catchers sur
passed the mechanical Miller OF
Brooklyn and the fading Meyers. In
1917 Schalk was better man than
Bill Rariden, who deserted home
plate on the famous Zimmerman play
on which Heine chased the winning
run of one game across the pan.
1t was fifty-fifty between KillefeI
and Schang in the series of 1918, but
the Chicagos were so full of strike
that it didn't make much difference
Schang did not catch great ball and
Chicago did not play great ball.
The black series of 1919 found
Schalk fighting dishonest members Of
his own team. As catcher he shont
no brighter than Wingo. but how
could he under such conditions?
O'Neill of Cleveland surpassed Mil
Ter of Brooklyn in his decline in th'
1920 series.
In 1921 Schang was decisively out
played by his Giant rival. Snyder. ant
in 1922 the same thing happened
again. viii history repeat itself il
1923?
Schang Has Never Starred.
Surely it seems that the catcher
must have his place in the world Sc
ries a. well as the pitcher. Let thu
backstop be considered potent fac
tor in this meeting of the baseball