The Definitive Years: Setting the Record Straight on the Evolution and Effects of the Catchers Mitt

Controversy reigns in the overhand vintage base ball world today with the catcher’s glove at the forefront. Most clubs here in New England try to represent the year 1886 (why that year was chosen is not clear). Let me say, we all do a damn good job…almost too good, better than we or most people realize. It’s all based on the hand injuries to the catcher. Most vintage club’s catchers started using gloves from the 1920s or 1930s (based on photos of the time period, these were a decent idea) stuffed with anything soft and durable which worked fine for a short time but with growth in the number of teams, the number of games increased and the old gloves took a beating and were falling apart due to age and use. Replica 1920s and 1930s gloves were next (also stuffed with whatever). Some were great quality and some just basically sucked. A few diehards would chose to go 100% authentic and go with both hands using the half finger style gloves. Based on my research, MLB catchers had a choice to use whatever they wanted as there were no regulations to catcher’s gloves. With hand injuries on the rise in the vintage game, some tried to make production model gloves of the time period. This included some decent attempts of which the most popular (but historically shaped wrong) was the completely round pancake mitt (sort of like a modern day training glove). The pancake protects the hands in two ways, the web-less but round pancake acts as a “web” lessening the chance of palm injury by catching the ball in the “web” without the need of using the free-hand to contain the ball. Keeping the free-hand away from the action of course prevents injuries from foul tips. The problem with the pancake is two fold. It is shaped wrong and injuries still happen. Since the pancake has no interior structure, the thumb is prone to injury when “jammed.” I have seen it happen to others, I have experienced it myself.

What The Hell Was Going On Back Then?
To put things in perspective, read my other entries or do your own research. There are many, many sources. To simplify things, 1884 is the starting point of this puzzle. In 1884 overhand pitching was first allowed at the major league level. Over the next several years ball and strike counts were tinkered with, fluctuating between the two major leagues. In 1886 pitchers were allowed to get a running start outside the box in order to throw as hard as they could. In 1887 the back line of the pitchers box was moved back to 57’ from 56’ and the pitcher was required to stay in the box when he began his motion to pitch and keep one foot on the back line. The count for balls was reduced to 5 from 7 but the strike count was raised to 4 from 3, foul balls were now strikes and a hits batsman was allowed to take his base. Some of these changes were to control the pitchers speed in order to bring more offense into the game while some of the changes were viewed as a compromise for the pitcher. In between, the number of changes was too exhausting to account for all of them. By 1893, the pitching distance was pushed back to the modern distance.

When Did Mitts Become The Norm?
In March of 1889, Earle Decker & Paul Buckley applied for a U.S. Patent for a “Catcher’s Glove” (a real mitt, not a five finger glove). Decker was a major league catcher, off and on from 1884 to 1890. In the summer of 1889, ads began appearing in the Sporting News for the “Decker Glove” promoting catching “without injury.” In August, the patent was issued. However, in the summer of 1888, Joe Gunson a catcher in the major leagues, off and on from 1884 to 1893, lays claim to the first mitt in use (1888) and was shocked when Decker began mass marketing the glove in 1889.

What Effects Did The Mitt Have?
It’s worth mentioning that once the overhand game began and the rules were tinkered with year after year (focusing on the pitcher/batter relationship), the average runs per game were very stable. Here are some stats to chew on: 21 runs per game in 1871, down to 15 in 1874 and would hover to around 10 to 12 from 1875 to 1900. From 1900, the average score would drop to 7 runs per game for the next several years. In 1886, the year we are most familiar with, the National League average runs per game was 10.5 while in the American Association the average was 11. In 1891, the first year where “mitts” were used on a regular basis, the National League Average was 11 runs per game while in the American Association the number of runs scored rose to 11.5. Other offensive categories were on the rise as well including hits per game and strikeouts per game fell, even with foul balls counting as strikes. What does this prove out? From 1884 on, run scoring was NOT HIGH and fireball pitching WAS THE NORM. Go figure?

What Is The Solution?
So we know that 1888 / 1889 was the year the catcher’s mitt was first used and then mass marketed and popularized. The “Akadema H1928” (with the thread-webbing removed – go ahead and Google it) is a dead ringer for the “Decker.” With no appreciable change forecasted in scoring, I would say we need to set our sights on 1888. Back to the Future anyone?

Sore Catcher’s Hands Draws Controversy

During a National League game in Chicago in August of 1886 between the Philadelphia Quakers and the Chicago White Stockings, sore catcher’s hands would be the focus of a controversial strategic situation. Interestingly the key characters in this affair are some of the most famous in all of 19th century base ball.

With Chicago batting in the top of the 3rd having taken the lead 5-3 by scoring four runs in the inning already and still threatening with a runner at 2nd, Dan Casey, the Philadelphia hurler pitched a fast ball wild and high enough to get past catcher Deacon McGuire advancing the runner on 2nd over to third. Catcher McGuire claimed he injured his finger on the play and opted to pull himself from the game. League rules required approval from the opposing team’s captain, the legendary Cap Anson, and the umpire in order to remove an injured player from the game. Anson declined the ok claiming McGuire was not badly injured and the umpired also agreed and told McGuire to stay in the game. The Philadelphia captain, Foxy Irwin, became enraged and “kicked” in McGuire’s defense (more importantly knowing McGuire was really injured and could not catch a pitch with any effectiveness). He consulted with team manager, Harry Wright (whose powers were limited in playing matters) and asked McGuire if he could continue and reluctantly agreed. This again enraged Irwin even further and he continued to “kick.” The umpire understood the catcher’s hands were sore before but did not believe they became unplayable on the last play and required the catcher to continue.

Fifteen minutes had past during the argument upsetting the cranks who had become impatient. When play resumed, the furious Philadelphia captain directed McGuire to stand way back behind the batter (much more so than normal) and catch the pitch on the bounce. On the first pitch the runner from third stole home. Three more runs would score in the inning on a series of hits, passed balls and dropped third strikes as McGuire was unable to perform his duties with any effectiveness. With the crowd becoming even more restless due to the lack of quality, League president, Albert Spalding, who happened to be in attendance, immediately went down to the field to consult with Harry Wright and directed catcher McGuire to move closer to the batter in the normal position. Again, Irwin exploded, this time at Wright for approving this move and ordered McGuire to his position deep behind the batter. Spalding, having heard Irwin reversed his order, raced back to the field to confer with Anson and Wright and declared that the came would continue under protest and allowed a change in catchers to which Spalding shook his finger at Irwin and said, “We’ll have you disciplined for your tactics!” Finally, after forty minutes of delays and arguments, the game continued and Chicago won but much of the interest was lost.

It was thought that Anson was to blame for this entire problem not letting the change in catchers. The editors of the Sporting News agreed with Anson stating that “sentiment and chivalry does not and should not enter into the question in any shape, whatsoever.” The wise but dirty Anson, who knew McGuire’s hands were already hurting at the outset of the game, did not believe McGuire’s hands got hurt on the play and was using his rights to make the call in Chicago’s favor. The actions of Irwin irked Spalding so much that he suggested disciplining the Philadelphia captain for “conduct prejudicial to the good repute of the game of base ball.”

Training the Catcher: A Process Essential to Good Base Ball Playing

Brooklyn Eagle
August 4, 1890
In a great article written in 1890, the topic is the early season preparation of the catcher. The early part of the article talks of proper loosening up the arm when in the gymnasium in pre season by throwing short distances and eventually lengthening the throws to reach second base with “comparative ease.” A later section talks about the importance of a mask but the relevant portion to us modern day vintage ballists talks about preparing the hands.

“A point of catcher’s practice which does not enter into the work of the pitcher is that of toughening the hands. Rowing on the machines, climbing the rope, swinging on the flying rings, and hand ball, if there be any court for that excellent game, will all tend toward this end. He should consider, however, that it is not merely toughening the skin of the hands that is desirable, but also hardening the flesh so that is not easily bruised. For this reason he should receive no swift balls, and should stop at the first feeling of anything beyond a moderate tingling of the palms. His hands should receive their full preparatory hardening before he goes out into the field, for ordinary carefulness demands that he should do no catching behind the bat after the season commences with hands full protected by well padded gloves. What is commonly called a stone bruise is one of the carelessness in this respect.”