Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Primate Studies > Discussion
Primate Studies
— Where BTF's Members Investigate the Grand Old Game

Monday, December 22, 2003

Baseball Primer Reviews: The Player: Christy Mathewson, Baseball, and the American Century

Mark reviews Philip Seib’s book about Christy Mathewson and society at large.

Philip Seib teaches journalistic ethics at Marquette University. He describes himself as a Washington Senators fan, which certainly should give him the character to qualify for his profession. The Player, a biography of Christy Mathewson, appears to be his first baseball book. Seib had expert assistance in writing it - his list of acknowledgments includes Eric Enders.

Seib shows no interest in statistical analysis or even statistics, though he apparently has read the BJHBA (he quotes James on an historical point). He mentions only a few traditional stats (BA, ERA, W/L), and then only in passing. I think it fair to say that baseball itself is mostly a backdrop for the real purpose of the book: providing a moral lesson with Mathewson as the exemplar. Seib says in the Preface that he “was drawn to [Mathewson’s] story partly because today sportsmanship is becoming obsolete, replaced by taunting, showboating and worse. Being a sports star used to be accompanied by a sense of responsibility to team and fans, but many of today’s athletes don’t want to be role models…. That’s a shame. We could use some more heroes….”

Mathewson certainly is a good choice for this role. He was widely praised during his career (1900-16) for embodying “manly” virtues of fair play, hard competition, and honesty. Here’s the New York Herald as quoted by Seib: “[T]he qualities of character Mathewson displayed outside of his professional skill were widely recognized. ... The simplicity and genuineness of his disposition, his unaffected candor, his natural devotion to clean living, and his high conception of right conduct enabled him to impress the desirability of manly virtues and fine ideals on many youngsters.” This tribute fairly encapsulates Seib’s thesis.

That thesis leads him beyond the confines of baseball in order to put Mathewson in the overall context of his times. How many other baseball biographies list such authors as Philip Bobbitt, Herbert Croly, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Keegan alongside Lawrence Ritter, Fred Lieb and Charles Alexander in the bibliography? While Seib does provide highlights of Mathewson’s career and insights into Mathewson’s theories about pitching - he believed control and a good curve were a pitcher’s best weapons - Seib clearly enjoys the opportunity to discuss the social life of America in those years. The book is well worth the read for that alone, though I didn’t always agree with Seib’s social or political analysis

I’m a big Giants fan and I knew quite a bit about Mathewson before reading this book. Seib provides new and interesting material on Mathewson’s early years. Mathewson was unusual in those days in coming to baseball from a prosperous family and in being college educated (though he didn’t graduate). His mother wanted him to be a Baptist preacher, and Seib says Mathewson promised her that he would never pitch on Sunday. Whether this provides a moral example is not entirely clear. Keeping a promise to one’s mother surely shows good character, but refusing to play on Sundays deprived working people and those who worshipped on other days the opportunity to see Mathewson play. To their credit, Seib and Mathewson both recognized the dilemma here.

Seib and Mathewson showed less interest in another issue, though. “In addition to pitching for the college team, [Mathewson] continued to make money at the game. The rules governing collegiate amateurs were loose enough to allow Christy to play for pay during the summers.” This might be true, but it seems inconsistent with what I remember of the Jim Thorpe situation.

Seib claims for Mathewson two significant moral effects on the game. Baseball in the 1890s was a rowdy sport and the players were widely perceived as ruffians. Mathewson was the perfect contrast for a sport trying to improve its image. He didn’t carouse, he didn’t fight, he rarely even argued with the umpires. He maintained his dignity while still competing as strongly as anyone. He was the biggest star in the biggest city, playing for one of the three best teams in the league at that time.

Unfortunately, Seib tellsthis more than he shows it. When he does provide an example, it’s problematic. For example, Mathewson was coaching first base when the Merkle play occurred (a new fact for me). Seib says that in the following controversy, Mathewson’s affidavit admitting that Merkle failed to touch second was the deciding factor in the denial of the Giants’ appeal.

It has been awhile since I read the Merkle appeal affidavits, but Seib’s description is inconsistent with my memory of the issues. The big issue was not whether Merkle touched second, but whether under all the circumstances - lack of prior enforcement, fan interference, delayed call - the rule should have been enforced in this case.

Seib has stronger, but still problematic, grounds for crediting Mathewson with opposition to the gambling which threatened to destroy the integrity of baseball in the years up to and including 1919. When Mathewson’s playing career ended, he became the manager of the Cincinnati Reds. While there, Mathewson had the misfortune to manage Hal Chase. Chase may not have been the great talent that Seib claims, but he did have his best season for Mathewson in 1916, leading the league in OPS+ and being widely recognized as an unparalleled defensive first baseman.

Despite Chase’s seemingly great year, Mathewson realized that Chase was corrupt. He gathered evidence of gambling and bribery and took it to the league office. Unfortunately, the NL President, John Heydler, worried that the evidence wouldn’t stand up in court and refused to discipline Chase. This failure to take advantage of an opportunity to clean up the game may not have caused the Black Sox scandal, but it certainly perpetuated the conditions in which it could occur.

Chase continued to play for Mathewson, awkward though it must have been, until Mathewson volunteered for service in World War I. He got to Europe in September 1918, but wasn’t discharged until February 1919. The uncertainty over Mathewson’s return forced the Reds to hire Pat Moran as replacement manager, so Mathewson took a job coaching with the Giants. Ironically, during the winter McGraw traded for Chase, a deal that led the Reds to the Series in 1919 and forced Mathewson to deal with Chase for yet another year.

The Chase trade was peculiar, to say the least. McGraw knew of the allegations made by Mathewson and Mathewson was like a son to McGraw—the two shared an apartment in NY and their wives were best friends. Seib offers no explanation for the deal except that McGraw “thought he could control” Chase and needed him to win (?!). Whatever this may say of McGraw, or of Mathewson for failing to force the issue, McGraw eventually realized that Chase and another Giants player, Heinie Zimmerman, were crooked. Both were later banned for life.

Mathewson may deserve less credit than Seib gives him, but there is no doubt he stood publicly on the right side of 2 very important issues facing baseball in the early 20th Century. But since Seib is writing an avowed morality tale, it’s also fair to ask if there were other moral issues facing the game in those days on which Mathewson could or should have made a stand.

There were, of course. The players may have gambled, but the owners also behaved despicably. Mathewson’s own career began under the shadiest of them all, Andrew Freedman, and Mathewson was an unwitting participant in a smelly transaction. Mathewson pitched for Norfolk when the Giants first scouted him. The Giants offered Norfolk $1500 for Mathewson. The purchase price, however, was contingent on Mathewson sticking with the Giants. He didn’t pitch very well, and the Giants returned him to Norfolk without paying the $1500. What happened next exemplifies the behavior of the times. Over the winter of 1901, Cincinnati bought Mathewson from Norfolk for $300. They then traded him to NY for aging star Amos Rusie. The deal has all the aspects of a fraud: Rusie was finished as a player (he hadn’t even pitched in 2 full years and appeared in only 3 games for Cincinnati), and Freedman was obviously cheating Norfolk out of $1200. To make matters worse, the owner of Cincinnati was John T. Brush, who 2 years later bought the Giants, including Mathewson, from Freedman.  Nowhere in the book does Seib or Mathewson comment on this or other corrupt or abusive behavior by baseball’s owners, some well-known instances of which were perpetrated by Brush and McGraw.

All this pales in comparison, however, to the real scandal of the day: baseball’s ban on players of color. The ban was less than 20 years old when Mathewson joined the Giants. McGraw, to his credit, tried to circumvent the ban. Seib says Mathewson never publicly addressed racial issues, though they must have come up when McGraw tried to pass off a black man as Native American. Since Mathewson was silent on this subject, Seib mentions it only in passing, which is fair enough…...

Except that Seib repeatedly praises Woodrow Wilson for his idealism, directly comparing Wilson’s idealism to Mathewson’s character:

    “Wilson’s persistent idealism legitimized the views of others who embraced a high-minded approach to personal standards. ... Twenty years earlier, professional sports and idealism would not have been a good match. Mathewson would have beena lonely champion of sportsmanship and of the compatibility of baseball and personal virtue. But in Woodrow Wilson’s America, principle mattered, and Mathewson was in the mainstream. Wilson’s pledge ‘to cleanse, to reconsider, to restore’ and his insistence on a ‘high code of honor’ found an acolyte in Mathewson, who set his own work ethic and personal code on the highest plane.”

    Woodrow Wilson was the most racist President of the 20th Century. Character has many facets.

I’ve never understood the claim that someone has “Character”. The only assertion that makes sense to me is that someone acted rightly in a particular situation. Specific actions make good examples; individuals considered as a whole - messy, complex, contradictory - may not. The search for heroes, rather than heroic actions, leads eventually to disappointment when, inevitably, a flaw appears in even the best person.

Mathewson died young, of tuberculosis. He spent his last few years at Saranac Lake in New York, a famous sanatorium founded by the great grandfather of Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau. His record alone reserves his place as one of the greatest pitchers ever. Whether he was, as Seib claims, a “transforming presence” in “wider realms of American life” is up to the reader to judge.

Mark Field Posted: December 22, 2003 at 06:00 AM | 18 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Srul Itza Posted: December 22, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614256)
"Woodrow Wilson was the most racist President of the 20th Century. "

What was it about Wilson that earns him this accolade as, not merely racist, but the most racist president of the preceding century?
   2. Mark Field Posted: December 22, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614257)
Wilson adopted the segregationist policies that the Southern states had been instituting over the previous 2 decades. For example, he segregated the federal government offices.

My judgment is limited to the 20th Century. Wilson's views on race would have been much more common in the 19th Century.
   3. robert Posted: December 22, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614258)
I've read Ray Robinson's biography of Mathewson, "Matty, An American Hero," which I quite enjoyed. Have you read that one, and if so, how does it compare to "Christy Mathewson, Baseball, and the American Century"?
   4. Mark Field Posted: December 22, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614259)
I have read Robinson's book and liked it. It's hard to compare the two because they have such different goals. Robinson's book is a traditional baseball biography, Seib's is more of a cultural history with Mathewson, a baseball player, as the focus. I guess I prefer Robinson, but it partly depends on what you want.
   5. Mark Field Posted: December 22, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614260)
Srul:

I owe you a better answer than my original one, which I made as I was leaving.

Obviously, I'm making a comparison between Wilson and other presidents, and someone else could disagree. Here are some of the bases for my conclusion:

1. Kendrick Clements, The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, describes Wilson as "insensitive to African-American feelings and aspirations."

2. He refused to take any steps towards ameliorating racial problems, even refusing to appoint a commission to study the issue.

3. He permitted subordinates to segregate, downgrade or discharge black employees. For example, all blacks in the Post Office but one were transferred to the dead letter office. The lone remaining employee had to work at a desk surrounded by screens so that white employees wouldn't have to look at him. When the NAACP protested, Wilson responded that segregation was "in the interest of the colored people".

4. Wilson aggressively redistributed Indian lands to whites, issuing over half of the transfers which reduced Indian lands from 138 million acres to 47 million. This contributed substantially to the impoverishment of the Native Americans.

5. Wilson refused federal intervention in race riots and lynching cases (a failure which, by the way, was common to most Presidents before Truman).

6. He like to tell "negro stories".

7. He objected to the inclusion of a racial equality clause in the League of Nations treaty and used his power as President of the Convention to block it.

8. He was, in the judgment of biographer August Hecksher, "unsympathetic" to the idea of black students at Princeton while he was President of that university.

The race record of the federal government before Truman was, generally, quite poor. Wilson just seems to me to have gone a little further down that road.
   6. GregD Posted: December 23, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614261)
Wilson's "scholarly" writings on Reconstruction, while within the bounds of scholarship at the time, are prime examples of the "stupid negroes can't govern themselves, and the 15th Amendment should never have been passed" school. Wilson himself praised Birth of a Nation for telling the truth about Reconstruction.

While Teddy Roosevelt also liked to spend his time writing about the genetic inferiority of black people, he, partly because of the base of Republican support from black voters at the time, followed much more lenient practices than Wilson did, and famously paid a social visit with Booker T Washington, much outraging southern congressmen.

Obviously it is kind of a silly statement to have to defend--racist by what standard, racist relative to now or racist for the era--but racial thinking was at the core of Wilson's intellectual career, and his intellectual work was at the core of who he was. So I suspect there is some reason to say that his racism was more self-conscious, more fully developed, more publicly argued, and more central to his intellectual life than any other president. Which is to say that unlike most presidents (or most Americans) Wilson was an intellectual racist--one who believed that racism was scientifically justified based upon the proven inferiority of black people. So he was therefore truly racist, not prejudiced, as people sometimes define the terms.
   7. ChuckO Posted: December 23, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614262)
Are there any books that focus in on the corruption of the game in this period? It sounds like a wild and woolly time and I would be interested in reading about it.
   8. Mark Field Posted: December 23, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614264)
Chuck: Actually, the BJHBA has good discussions of both the rowdiness problem and the gambling issue.

Joe: I had never heard that about Mathewson either. Can it be checked on Retrosheet?

GregD: Thanks for expressing it so well.
   9. GregD Posted: December 23, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614269)
The statement that Wilson denied his statement "on first report" is demonstrably false. The movie had been showing with his printed endorsement for some time. He issued his statement after the first protest, a key distinction. While his exact wording at his private screening is debated, his favorable feeling toward the movie was not. Several people said he applauded. If you read Wilson's books, you would see why. His portrayal is, if anything, more brutal than Birth of a Nation.

And Wilson was by either relative or universal standards much more racist than Strom Thurmond. To be quick, Thurmond had a period of racial moderation as a young politician, a stance he quit after a bitter loss; Wilson was never out-negroed by anyone. Thurmond spoke against lynchers, even though he opposed federal anti-lynching laws; Wilson, although a believer in the rule of law, defended lynchers in print as doing what was necessary, if regrettable, to shed "negro domination." Thurmond often expressed (condescending) affection for black people and liked to have them on his professional and household staff, in subordinate roles. Wilson hated to be around black people. After black South Carolinians started to vote, Thurmond, in LBJ's phrase, puckered up and kissed the ass of black politicians. Despite the growing presence of black Democratic organizers in northern cities, Wilson refused to have anything to do with them, and he probably delayed the historic shift of black voters from the Republican to the Democratic party through his well-known stances.

Thurmond expressed the idea that black people were and should be subordinate, that they were childlike. Obviously, that's not a defensible stance. But Wilson expressed in print the belief that black people weren't truly human, and he expressed great admiration for German race theorists who inspired extermination campaigns there and the extremely popular eugenics movement here, a movement Wilson expressed favorable opinions toward.

Wilson v Thurmond, though irrelevant to the question of the "most racist" 20th century president, is a useful way, though, of breaking down the difference between scientific racism--which was endorsed by virtually every Ivy League president--and on-the-ground southern racism--which was about domination but not extermination.
   10. Mark Field Posted: December 23, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614270)
Someone--I forget who, where, or when--brought up a story somewhere on the Net within the past two years about Mathewson observing the 1919 World Series and maintaining that it was all above board, that the Reds won because they were the superior team--the point of the story evidently being that Mathewson was either being naive, or suspected the fix but kept his suspicions to himself. Does this story ring a bell?</i>

I haven't seen that story. It's completely inconsistent with Seib's version. According to Seib, Mathewson was telling at least some reporters that he could tell the games were fixed.

However, it wouldn't surprise me if Mathewson made public comments to the effect you describe. Not only did he have to worry about defamation, but he was unlikely to drag down the game of baseball without hard evidence. Moreover, he had been the Reds' manager just the year before, so he had some interest in praising the team.
   11. Jon Daly Posted: December 24, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614273)
Mark good to see another book review here. I enjoyed it.
   12. Mark Field Posted: December 24, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614274)
Thanks Jon. This came up in an unexpected way, but I enjoyed doing it. I'd love to see reviews by others, perhaps even a Reviews page where posters could contribute reviews of older books and we could add ratings or comments. There are lots of books I've never read and I'd like to know what I'm missing.
   13. Michael Humphreys Posted: December 26, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614277)
Mark--enlightening and beautifully written. Thanks.
   14. Mark Field Posted: December 26, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614278)
Michael:

Thanks. And let me return the compliment regarding your DRA series.
   15. Mark Field Posted: December 26, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614280)
kevin:

Thanks.

Yes, he does talk about it. Mathewson was in the Chemical Warfare Service. His duties included training others on how to react to poison gas attacks. Seib mentions there were conflicting stories about what happened. Branch Rickey reported that he saw no ill effects on Mathewson. According to Ty Cobb, a drill went wrong one day and Mathewson told Cobb, "I got a good dose of the stuff. I feel terrible."

Seib does not resolve the issue, but suggests that Mathewson's repeated exposure to gas, combined with a bout of influenza when he first got to France, permanently weakened his lungs and left him susceptible to TB. This seems plausible. OTOH, Christy's brother Henry died of TB in 1917 without ever going to war. It's possible there was family exposure to the disease or a genetic weakness involved.
   16. jimd Posted: December 30, 2003 at 04:02 AM (#614288)
Mathewson not playing on Sunday was not as difficult as it may seem for most of his career. Sunday baseball was against the law in New York and the other 3 Eastern cities. (I'm not sure about Pittsburg.) The Giants then probably had only 5 or 6 scheduled games
on Sunday on their western road trips in a typical season. The result is that Matty would have a Sunday start shifted probably once or twice a year.
   17. Mark Field Posted: February 12, 2004 at 04:08 AM (#614656)
According to Seib, "Mathewson returned to Bucknell after the 1900 season [with the Giants], but he had lost his enthusiasm for academic life. His grades dropped and he eagerly left school the following April to rejoin the Giants."

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4726 seconds
47 querie(s) executed