A McCreachery Card Theory

[Joe_G.]

Holy smokes, glad to see the many replies since my last visit but I still cannot follow cyseymour's reasoning. I believe much of the confusion for you cyseymour resides in a failure to soak in all that is known about the situation. In no particular order, I'd like to offer some information that might help you.

- All Deacon White N172 cards are rare, the McCreachery only has a single known copy today, some of his other poses are not that far behind. I'd gladly trade a high grade Delahanty for a White
- By studying the N172 team change cards of 1888 (Fa & Fb), as well as the other years of N172 production, you quickly realize that the N172 cards were produced during the earliest part of the baseball season. The cabinets would often catch later in the year trades (produced perhaps during and after the N172 run)
- Only new players for Indy & Detroit were photographed in 1888 at Fearsnaught studio together with those that were somehow missed in 1887. McGeachy was photographed in 1887, so he was not part of the photo shoot. Strangely, all players were photographed in 5 poses except Deacon who posed for 9 different shots. The other Detroit players to be photographed that day were Baldwin, Conway, Getzien, and Scheibeck.
- Detroit began 1888 very strong, holding first place as late as July 28th (tied with NY Giants at 47-20 => well past 1/2 way point of season) when they lost the first of 16 straight! Yes, Detroit lost 16 straight but not because of Deacon White. Hardy Richardson broke his ankle (season ending injury), Sam Thompson had a lame throwing arm (wouldn't play remainder of the season), and most importantly, the team did not like their manager (Watkins). Watkins was strict and quick to fine players whether they deserved it or not and this quickly grew old. The Wolverines wouldn't return to winning ways until team Secretary, Robert Leadley, would take over as manager. By mid-1888, every team member despised Watkins (Deacon wasn't alone on this).
- Furthermore, the poor finish to 1888 wasn't responsible for Detroit disbanding; the death blow was instead due to a tough NL ruling that left visiting clubs with a smaller share of gate receipts. Detroit drew huge crowds on the road and did well in 1887 however they couldn't cover the player's salaries in 1888 with the smaller cut. (Jealous Boston, New York, etc. knew how to put an end to a small town team)
- Lastly, and I repeat, Deacon White had a solid 1888, he wasn't the demise of the Wolverines.

I do however like the discussion that has resulted from the probing.

Great to hear from some of my long time Detroit friends! Hope all is well.

[RCMcKenzie]

tebeaumgr.jpg

Here is a card I happened to get in the mail today of Oliver Wendell Tebeau who became manager of the Cleveland Infants in 1890 at the age of 25. He continued as a player/manager through 1898 with the then Cleveland Spiders.

Jack McGeachy was 24 with Indy in 1887 when Burnham left his post as manager. I have not been able to find any indication that McGeachy managed Indy, but he appears to have been an established starting player at 24 and may have been player manager for a brief interim period.

After learning about the Detroit and Indy combined photoshoots it seems more likely to me that the resulting McCreachy card was some sort of mix up, rather than an elaborate riddle.

[cyseymour]

Joe,

Do you even have a high grade Delahanty to trade? They're pretty hard to find, you know.

You make some interesting points, but it doesn't disprove the source of the riddle. Your criticism doesn't touch the side of the double-entendre originally observed by "Pariah" that says "Sweet Son of God", i.e. McCrea/Chery. That's just a reference to his religiosity.

It does paint some question on the theory that Dan N. raises with "creach" being a downfall/"fall from grace". Perhaps it was not the downfall of the Wolverines, exactly, but the joke on the card via Mgr. Indianapolis being that he was too old to play, it still suggests a downfall.

So the double-entendre still fits... unless you no longer believe the card was intended as a joke?

One more thing:

Deacon White career OPS .740
Ed Delahanty career OPS .916

To each his own, my friend.

[cyseymour]

So people think it's an error card with both the wrong name AND the wrong photo? Even though the riddle McCrea/Chery perfectly explains the personality of the gentleman in the photo?

Here's another question: did anyone think this before the McCreachery card was exposed as a riddle? Because I didn't hear anyone suggest it then. Does that mean that the riddle theory makes it more likely to be an error card?

[Matthew H]

Maybe they were poking fun at his age, maybe they thought he looked More like a manager then a player in that pose... Has anyone thought of that yet?

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Maybe they were poking fun at his age, maybe they thought he looked More like a manager then a player in that pose... Has anyone thought of that yet?

Matt, the trouble is that the wrong dude cracked the code of the McCreachery name... it was supposed to be one of the OJ book authors. God must've forgotten his footnotes.

I wasn't supposed to be making landmark discoveries in the hobby until my postcount cracked a hundred at least.

[RCMcKenzie]

Cy,

This thread is starting to remind me of the scene in "Back to School" where Rodney Dangerfield hires Kurt Vonnegut to write his paper for him on a book by Vonnegut. Vonnegut writes the paper and Dangerfield gets a C and the teacher tells Dangerfield that he doesn't know anything about Vonnegut.

I studied English Lit at Tulane in the 80's and have rarely used what I learned there, until this thread. However, I do not think the makers of the tobacco inserts were trying to write "Ode on a Grecian Urn". I think they just messed up. I will say that I have never seen anyone reference Jane Austin on here before, but I have been away for awhile and Runscott may have done it.

[cyseymour]

RCMcKenzie,

If you choose to think that it's an error card, you're more than welcome to. You didn't think that when the thread started and were proposing the name was a reference to his drinking, but clearly you've changed your mind.

Is it impossible to believe that someone who has a passion for etymology and 19th Century literature might be able to realize certain meanings of a card that had previously been unrealized? Or that perhaps I was able to use my unique lens to integrate the ideas of different board members?

Per the Grecian Urn comment, perhaps you underestimate the intelligence of people from that time period. Unless you feel that they are truly lacking the wisdom you gained from watching Rodney Dangerfield.