[chucksabr]

Substitute Batsman For Pitchers?

From America has come the suggestion that pitchers ought not to bat, but instead be allowed a permanent “substitute batsman” during the game. The notion is finding a champion among some of the chairmen of the League, such that it may be implemented before long, although not for 1907.

The idea is that in the place of the traditional slot in the batting order that would be occupied by the pitcher, another player would take his place on a permanent basis during the match, whether allowing a starting fielder to bat twice in the order, or to allow a player sitting on the bench to pick up the bat in the hurler’s place.

The promulgator of this notion in America is the club chairman Cornelius McGillicuddy, aka "Connie Mack", a venerated figure of the sport of baseball in America for two decades, first as a player and now as the leader of the Philadelphia Athletics club of the American League. Athletics have won two league cups in the past five years, and thus Mr. Mack is a man of some influence himself in baseball circles “across the pond”.

A magazine article appeared in Philadelphia earlier in 1906, which came to the attention of certain chairmen in the League and who have been citing parts of it as chapter and verse in defence of their position on the matter. Messrs. Bertie Harper, William Bull and Charles Creswell, of the Liverpool, Middlesbrough and Fulham clubs, respectively, are said to all be especially keen on the idea of the substitute batsman. The full text of the article appears here:

“The suggestion, often made, that the pitcher be denied a chance to bat, and a substitute player sent up to him every time, has been brought to life again, and will come up for consideration when the American and National League Committees on rules get together.

“This time Connie Mack is credited with having made the suggestion. He argues that a pitcher is usually such a poor hitter that his time at the bat is a farce, and the game would be helped by eliminating him in favor of a better hitter.”

That is the part that the esteemed chairmen are fond of quoting, yet this is immediately followed by an indictment against the idea in the very same magazine article:

“Against the change there are many strong points to be made. It is wrong theoretically. It is a cardinal principle of base ball that every member of the team should both field and bat. Instead of taking the pitcher away from the plate, the better remedy would be to teach him how to hit the ball.

“A club that has good hitting pitchers like Plank or Orth has a right to profit by their skill. Many of the best hitters in the game have started as pitchers, Burkett, Seymour, Wallace, Callahan and Donlin come readily to mind as men who would never have taken their rank had the pitcher been deprived of his chance to go up and have a swing.”

This is also where we come out on the idea. We believe it is no coincidence that the three chairmen keenest on such a change also have among the worst batting pitchers in the League. Look no further than Boro’s Frederic Young, the worst of the bad, who could muster no more than four base hits in fifty seven at bats in 1906, for an execrable .070 hits average. Or the Cottagers’ Willie May, author of a mere ten base hits in 85 trips to the plate for a .118 hits average. Lest we leave the Reds out of all this, behold their pitcher Alfred Cooper, who has managed only ten base bits for a .135 average. Cogitate briefly upon this evidence, and the mystery behind why these chairmen would prefer their pitchers not bat becomes clear.

What would other pitchers around the League make of this idea, if you were to propose such to them? Louis Newton of Aston Villa, owner of a .354 hits average with four two base hits to his credit, would surely reject it out of hand. Willie Peace of Burton United, who has scored thirteen runs and batted for a .337 average, would be unimpressed. And Matthew Magill of Newcastle United would remember his own thirty one hits, ten runs scored, .348 hits average— and a home run!— and then laugh in your face!

We cannot underestimate the power of highly respected men to convince their colleagues to set forth on an unadvisable course of action. We hope that will not be the case here. We cannot advise strongly enough against the suggestion that a permanent substitute batsman should bat in place of the pitcher. Nine men field, nine men hit. That’s the way it is, and ought to be, in the British game of baseball.