Was the 1891 National League Pennant Thrown?

Abstract

The rich history of professional baseball in 19th century America-what Harvey Frommer has labeled primitive baseball-has acquired its own fascination for a growing number of researchers.1 The last decades of the 19th century were a time of rapid transition in the game on the field, instability in the structure of professional leagues, much squabbling among club owners, and growing friction in player-owner relations, culminating in the emergence of the first players' union and a full-scale players' revolt.The formation in 1890 of the quasi-socialistic Players League (PL) by members of the Brotherhood of Professional Base Ball Players created a bizarre set of circumstances. Most of the top-quality players were Brotherhood members and signed on with the new league, but the PL's competition with the 14-year-old National League (NL) and the eight-year-old American Association (AA) confused baseball fans and alienated many of them. Although all three leagues put out inflated attendance figures, in reality people stayed away from ballparks in such numbers that by August everybody was losing money. The AA had moved its Brooklyn entry to Baltimore, the Philadelphia AA franchise was bankrupt, and several more clubs in all three leagues were close to it. At season's end the PL's financial backers-tired of losses and disillusioned with the league's profit-sharing setup-surrendered to the NL in exchange for stock in various NL franchises. Deserted by their money men, the rebellious players had no choice but to disband their league and seek reemployment in the NL or AA.2Early in 1891 representatives of the NL, the AA, and the minor league Western Association (WA) formed a new National Agreement, whereby the three leagues would respect each others' player contracts and otherwise cooperate to achieve a stable order in baseball. The AA reorganized itself, dropping its Brooklyn, Syracuse, Rochester, and Toledo franchises and adding Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Washington. The eighth member would be Boston, its roster formed mainly from the Boston PL pennant-winners. Other former PL'ers were to be reassigned to clubs that had reserved them in 1889, with player dispositions overseen by a three-man Board of Control consisting of the presidents of the NL, AA, and WA. But when AA president Allen W. Thurman voted with the other two Board members to uphold the signing of former AA players Harry Stovey and Louis Bierbauer by the NL's Boston and Pittsburgh clubs, respectively, the AA owners fired Thurman and abrogated the freshly crafted National Agreement. Professional baseball's fourth war was underway, one that the AA-which had suffered even worse financial setbacks in 1890 than the NL-was ill equipped to fight.3 With neither league bound to honor the reserve clause in players' contracts, raids on rosters went on throughout the 1891 season, Pittsburgh being especially aggressive in going after AA players.4Whatever club they joined or rejoined, former PL'ers tended to bring with them bitter feelings toward Brotherhood members who had rejected the PL, in some instances signing PL contracts before jumping back to their former teams for more money. John Montgomery Ward, leader of the Brotherhood revolt, outright refused to return to the New York Giants, where several Judases, as Ward termed them, had remained in 1890. Ward and other Brotherhood men were especially resentful of William Buck Ewing, one of the top players of the era. Originally a close Ward ally, Ewing had captained the New York PL club, but his in-season dealings with Giants president John B. Day and other NL'ers had prompted allegations of betrayal. Ward signed with the NL's Brooklyn Bridegrooms as captain (and playing manager). Although expectations in Brooklyn were high, Ward's team ended up in sixth place.5The hard-drinking, flamboyant Mike Kelly, a remarkably versatile player and a favorite wherever he performed, had captained the Boston PL pennant-winners. …