Evening star., 1933-04-28
And Chapman Says
tsThat Is Base Ball"

TO the Editor OF The Star:
Not being present at the ball game
on Tuesday, have only the news ac-
counts as the basis on which to con-
slider the happenings. These accounts
present various pictures Of the develop
ments, but 1t seems to me that out
Of the various statements presented, the
one having the most significance was
that Of Chapman, In which he indi-
Gated that his manner Of going into
second base under the particular con-
ditions constituted present day base
ball.
From the accounts 1t Is possible to
understand that Myer had run to the
base to take the throw, pivOtng with
his right foot on the bag and stepping
with his left into the diamond; this
is the orthodox way Of making this
play, and 1t was obviously known to
Chapman. The end OF the Chapman
slide discloses the fact that the left
shoe Of Myer was cut at two points;
this can mean only that Chapman
with the outer side Of the base open
had made the slide toward instead of
away from Myer-the evidence Of a
deliberate attempt to upset or other
wise break up the double play. And
since the movement was by the spread
"A
slide. the part Of the body in advance
presented the Chapman spikes as the
part which would naturally do the up
setting action, since these were in ad-
vance
1t is the general practice to try and
break up the double play If possible.
and one would expect to see efforts
made to do this. But did not assume
that this would include the conditions
Of an action which, from It's very ma
ture could lead to the possibility of
manning a player. Years ago I was
present at a game when Bob Ganley.
running into third base, cut the leg Of
Elberfeld from the knee down: the
sight was such that I hoped never to
see it repeated. And yet. in the set
ting Of Tuesday. can be seen a similar
result as potential reaction. The
only way to prevent it would be for the
pivot man to step out Of the way and
not attempt the play.
Chapman states that his course 'is
base ball" Is that really true? Is that
the message and the object lesson that
he wishes to present to the youths who
are getting their earlier training in our
national game? Is it we'll for us to
teach that it is proper for us to take
an action, even though it may MAIN
and cripple an opponent, to try to pre-
vent the making Of the double play?
Such course can only indicate the
fundamental that any activities taken
will be justified II the result is obtained.
1t places the results as superior to the
method Of obtaining them.
/ am wondering If this is the line
on which We wish our young men to
be developed-if We really place the
greater value on the outcome rather
than on the method by which that out
come Is secured PLAY hard-but play
fair" has been the standard as l have
known it. That was the basis on which
We played in my earlier days, and the
standard which We tried to inculcate
into the lives of those who followed U.S.
The important feature was the method
rather than the end. SO that we would
be trained in right thinking-to re-
member the rights OF others to the
same enjoyments We had.
And SO I question the correctness OF
the Chapman statement-the base ball
that l knew in my younger days and
the base ball we wish our youths of to-
day to plays not the base ball which
was exemplified by the Chapman action
ON Tuesday IT, as Chapman indicates.
he was truly exemplifying base ball OF
today. then 1t Is not base ball as l knew
it. And question ii the exemplihcation
which was given can be approved as
base ball" To those who love the game
and the personal mSnories We have OF
it and the meaning At has had for us,
the attempt to associate actions such as
this with base ball on the basis that
they are orthodox is something that
We cannot accept. And to the youths
OF today we would, in discussing the
actions of Tuesday. point out the clear
fact that this IS not base ball" be-
cause it violates the basic feature Of
all pastimes 10 play fair"
II q SEITZ