Merkle’s Boner … in 1889
Yes, it happened once before … in the very same way
Old friend and baseball savant Richard Hershberger posted this story to SABR’s 19th Century Research Committee listserv on Friday. I had never heard about it, and was stunned. Richard graciously permitted me to share it at Our Game. [I have added first names and images.] If you like this sort of thing, consider joining SABR, long famous for more than sabermetrics: http://sabr.org/join.
Here is some crunchy 19th century controversy to chew on in this off-season:
[Boston at Philadelphia 8/26/1889; home team elected to bat first, as was their prerogative] [bottom of the 12th inning, tie score (4–4), Boston at bat, two outs, King Kelly at second and Dan Brouthers on first] “[Dick] Johnston followed with a solid crack to centre and ran leisurely to first, bat in hand. When within ten feet of the base, seeing that Kelly had scored, he turned towards the right and ran over towards the stand. [Jimmy] Fogarty made a wild throw in, the ball getting away from [Sid] Farrar. It was finally secured by one of the Boston players, who passed it to Kelly. Farrar, Ed Delahanty and [Ben] Sanders ran after Kelly and tried to wrest the ball from him, but he would not give it up. The crowd then surged into the field and several passes were made at the ‘only,’ but none of them landed. Finally, with the aid of the officers, he was hustled into the dressing-room. Johnston did not touch first base. In fact, he stopped within ten feet of it; but even if Farrar had secured the ball and made the claim it would not have been allowed, as neither [umpires Wes] Curry nor [John]McQuade saw the play.”
“Kelly when seen said that he supposed Farrar wanted to substitute an old ball for a new one, as he did not tell him that he wanted the ball to make a play. Farrar admitted that in the excitement he did not tell Kelly what he wanted the ball for, but supposed that Kelly knew. The excitement was intense for a half hour, a great crowd being assembled on the outside of the grounds.” The (Philadelphia) Item August 27, 1889
The fact set is essentially the same as that of Merkle’s Boner. If anything, Merkle had a better reason for not completing the run to his base, as the crowd was coming onto the field. Here in 1889, the crowd seems only to have come onto the field once the controversy arose. So how this did play out in the inevitable protest? I’m glad you asked:
“President [Nick] Young yesterday [9/16] telegraphed Director [Arthur] Soden that the Boston-Philadelphia game had been declared by the League directors a victory for the Bostons. Three out of four members of the Board of Directors of the League voted for Boston, and it was not necessary for President Young, as chairman ex-officio, to cast his vote. President John B. Day stated in his communication to President Young
“‘To all practical intents and purposes the game in dispute was won for Boston on Johnston’s hit, which, having passed the centrefielder, permitted Kelly to score the winning run.’” Mr. [Robert C.] Hewett when the case was presented to him concurred in the opinion of Mr. Day and cast his vote accordingly. His opinion was not given, however, until yesterday and was a verbal reply to President Young’s message. For the Indianapolis Club President [John T.] Brush decided: “The umpire is sole judge of the game, and if he did not declare Johnston out for not running to first it must be presumed that he did reach there safely, in which case the run counted.”
“Messrs. Day, Brush and Hewett, it will be seen favored the award of the game to the Bostons, while President [William A.] Nimick, of Pittsburg, was the only director opposed to the leaders. This effectually disposed of the story that Mr. Day is inimical to the Bostons, and speaks well for the fair minded New Yorker.” The (Philadelphia) Item September 27, 1889
I suppose this is why we never hear of Johnston’s Boner.
Boston was at this point in a tight pennant race with New York — hence the praise for Day’s impartiality. My critique of the ruling in Merkle’s Boner is not on any point of the rules, but that the heat of a pennant race is not the time to suddenly start enforcing a rule. It isn’t often that we see the National League of the 1880s taking the high ground of sweet reason. — Richard Hershberger
ADDENDA: Richard provided me with the accounts from the Philadelphia Times and the Boston Herald, to give different perspectives on the play. Each below, respectively:
