The oldest card on this board?

[oldjudge]

Corey-Are they playing baseball or cricket? It almost looks like a combination of the two.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Corey-Are they playing baseball or cricket? It almost looks like a combination of the two.

IMO they are playing baseball under the NY rules, which supports the view of most historians that the Knickerbockers formally codified a version of the game that was already extant.

EDITED to add that period newspaper accounts of the Magnolias and the game they played confirm that it was baseball they were playing.

[Robextend]

I showed this to a friend who believes it shows some characteristics of Cricket. The "bat" seems to be very wide. Also, it looks like there is a wicket on the field. However if it was cricket, the catcher would be much further back. This could be a good example of how Baseball evolved from Cricket.

[barrysloate]

Corey- I clearly see several posts around the perimeter of the infield. Wouldn't that suggest the Massachusetts style of baseball?

[smokelessjoe]

Hey Barry,

Did you say Massachusetts Base Ball?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Corey- I clearly see several posts around the perimeter of the infield. Wouldn't that suggest the Massachusetts style of baseball?

If there were four posts I'd agree with you, but I see only three, the "fourth" being home plate where the batter appears to. Also, inasmuch as the game is taking place at Elysian Fields, it would seem more logical they would be playing the NY version. What is interesting is that there are posts for bases. IMO even though the core of the NY game was being played prior to the Knickerbockers formal codification in 1845, certain aspects were still evolving.

Sliding into a post or running into one for that matter doesn't sound appealing. You think baseball would be what it is today if post stayed in use?

[barrysloate]

Shawn- that's an amazing diagram. I remember when you posted it a year or two ago.

Corey- it's interesting that only two posts are visible- you would expect to see either four or none. Could you explain why there are only two? It's possible that the batter is standing in front of one and it is obscured, but of course there is no concrete evidence of it.

Edited to add you said you see three, and I only see two. Where is the one I am missing?

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by Robextend

I showed this to a friend who believes it shows some characteristics of Cricket. The "bat" seems to be very wide. Also, it looks like there is a wicket on the field. However if it was cricket, the catcher would be much further back. This could be a good example of how Baseball evolved from Cricket.

It is definitely not cricket. In cricket there are two wickets (a wicket has three stakes about 2" apart). The striking batsman would be standing in front of one of them and the non-striking batsman would be standing behind the other. The bowler (pitcher) would be releasing the ball from near the non-striking wicket. The wicketkeeper (catcher) would be farther back if the bowler threw fast, but would be close to the wicket for a slow bowler.

Best Regards,
Craig

[oldjudge]

Very interesting Corey--thanks!

[ullmandds]

Incredible piece Corey!!!