How about some "new" old judge trivia?

[cozmokramer]

Its been a while since we've had an Old Judge trivia thread, and considering the OJ experts we have on here, they always seem to be educational...

Anyone?

[Zach Wheat]

This player was a curious ommission from the initial 1887 "0" numbered series, despite the fact he led the NL in almost every pitching category the year before. Even more puzzling is that every other NL team had more players represented. Who was he?

And for those well versed in OJ lore - why was he overlooked (no answer for this one part of the question - but speculation is welcome).

[Joe_G.]

Good Morning Zach, the answer would be none other than Lady Baldwin of the Detroit Wolverines (one of my favorites). Lady and fellow pitching team mates Pretzel Getzien and Pete Conway would not be represented until 1888 together with Deacon White. Lady almost missed the 1888 photo shoot as well as manager Watkins sent him home early during their spring training tour. From memory (on the road right now), Lady was only with the team a day or two after their photo shoot in Indianapolis (Fearsnaught Studio) before a disappointed Watkins sent him home.

As to why Lady and the others missed the 1887 photo shoot . . . , not sure but will research it in the future. I haven't dated their 1887 photo shoot yet (date or location although I'm certain it wasn't in Detroit). If it was early during spring training tour, maybe the team hadn't fully assembled. If it was late, maybe some of them had already left for Detroit. Could also be situation of photos not turning out (maybe bad storm rolled in and the photographer didn't correctly compensate for appropriate lighting) or maybe the negatives were damaged/lost.

OK, another question:
For those who wish to collect one card of each player outside of California League cards, the players from which year (1886, 1887, 1888, or 1889) would prove most difficult? (excluded 1890 since no new players were issued that year).

[DixieBaseball]

I know very little about OJ's, but enjoy reading about them when I can... I will toss a coin between 1886 and 1889 and say, 1886.

[Zach Wheat]

Right, I knew you or Jay would get that one without even thinking. Not meaning to sidetrack your question, but do you think the reason Detroit is such an underrepresented team in the initial 1887 issue has to do with the other NL owners? I suspect this might have something to do with it.

For those that aren't familiar with all of the history of the Wolverines, I will reiterate a few key facts. Back in 1885, the new owner of the Wolverines, Stearns wanted to create a super team much like the Yankees of today. He bought the entire Buffalo Bisons including the Big 4 - Hardy Richardson, Rowe, Deacon White and Brouthers. This plan was met with a lot of resistance by the other NL owners and the rules were changed limiting the sharing of gate receipts to some marginal amount. Detroit wasn't the mecca of the auto industry yet and was considered a small town. Detroit could not support the payroll of the Super Team with only its gate receipts. Stearns couldn't afford to keep all of these high priced players - including Baldwin - and he eventually had to sell his star players. However, it took several years for the strategy to play out and starve Stearns. This meant that in 1886 and 1887 they were still playing with much of this talent and Baldwin had one of his best years in 1886. In 1887 Detroit won the NL penant; and folded shortly thereafter.

My theory is that the lack of Detroit cards in the initial 1887 issue (no Baldwin, Bennett or White), was due in part, to the influence of the other owners against Stearns.

Thoughts Joe?

[oldjudge]

I knew Joe would want to comment on Lady Baldwin. Another great pitching performance in 1886 was turned in by Chicago's rookie Jacko Flynn. He had the same ERA as Baldwin, 2.24, and a better winning percentage at 23-6. He led Chicago to the pennant but, at the end of the season, injured his arm, never to be the same again. He doesn't have an 1887 card but does have an 1888 card (with Omaha). His card is the rarest non-California League card in the set.

[Joe_G.]

After a long day of work I was hoping to see more activity on this thread. Oh well.

Zach, interesting thought but I do not think it was a conspiracy. Afterall, Goodwin & Co. was trying to boost sales by offering the public cards of their favorite players and teams. If Goodwin objected to Detroit's acquisition of the big 4 and retaliated by not issuing certain players, I think they may have pulled Brouthers, Richardson, and Rowe together with White. The main objectors to the Buffalo team purchase were the other team owners.

On a financial side note, Detroit actually did well in 1886, 1887, and even 1888 due to the sale of their players. None of the Detroit share-holders lost money. The writing was on the wall however in 1888 when gate reciepts were no longer split, injuries to Thompson & Richardson (limited playing time), and a growing resentment towards manager Bill Watkins. Detroit was forced to either disband or become a shadow of its former glory.

And the answer I was looking for to my question was <b>1888</b>.