“Good guys” of the dead ball era?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Cool thread.

I wouldn't necessarily blame this on moden trends for bios to spin negative; there was plenty of negative press at the time these guys played and built their reputations. Does seem to be premium in those days on very hard ass play, take any advantage you can get sort of play, willingness to throw punches when required.

Newspapers have always known that sleaze sells best. Biographies at this time period were usually one of two types, the kind still influenced by the German objectivity movement and the laudatory biography, a Christian overtoned version of Plutarch where the subject is used as a example of proper living and to instill values.

Today most of what is said about the old time players come from the biographies written of them long after they retired, not primary sources directly. These books skew to a more modern philosophy of biography, some in the sleazier 'juice sells' group like Cramer's Dimaggio and Stump's straight up fictional Cobb as an early example of it, and some with a softer approach and more meticulous fact checking but a similar philosophy. Laudatory has given way to its opposite, trying to bring down the figure instead of raise them up (neither of which is usually very accurate), and the ideal of objectivity is long dead. Biographers tend to focus on scandal, on misconduct, on things the subject said or did that is not in line with what is popular thought today. A new juicy claim sells books and pre-publication attention, not a fairly reported accounting of a decently lived life without much scandal.