The Unintended Consequence of Baseball's New Rules
A historical look at how league magnates failed to kill the dominance of pitchers, accidentally making them more expensive and rare than ever.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The unusual spectacle of three National League clubs tied for first place for four days was seen recently. The New York, Chicago and Boston clubs are the three which need pitching talent most, and they stand ready to shovel out the shekels to obtain such coveted timber. When the new pitching rule was framed, it was announced as the intention of the magnates to take away that powerful importance from the pitcher which made him so necessary to the men who conduct baseball as a business that he could command almost his own price for his services. The intention was no doubt good, but the plan miscarried. A good pitcher is now a higher-priced article than ever, because he is so rare. While the additional five feet of distance has much to do with the loss of effectiveness to many pitchers, the angle has more to do with it. Last year the pitcher had four feet leeway in taking his position; this year he is anchored to a 13-inch plate.
“A good pitcher is now a higher-priced article than ever, because he is so rare.”
This 1893 debate over rule changes mirrors modern sports analytics and the ongoing 'evolution vs. tradition' battle in MLB. Just as fans today argue over shift bans or pitch clocks, spectators in the 1890s were intensely aware of how slight adjustments to the 'box' fundamentally altered the economics and power structure of the game.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.