BATTER UP!

[LizzieMaine]

Candid shot in the visiting clubhouse at Yankee Stadium on October 4, 1955, as Brooklyn celebrates its only World Series crown. At left, partially undressed, is Duke Snider, and at right, feeling no pain at all with a can of Schaefer in his hand, is the most famous batboy in baseball history, Charlie "The Brow" DiGiovanna. Charlie was 25 years old when this photo was taken -- older than some of the players -- and had been a fixture in the Dodger organization since the early 1940s. In addition to his magnificent monobrow, Charlie was renowned as the finest forger of autographs in the major leagues -- if you own a Dodger team ball from the 1950s, chances are many or most of the signatures on it were actually his work. He mastered the signatures of all the players on the roster for as long as he worked in the clubhouse, and many of his signatures could have passed muster at a bank.

Charlie went to Los Angeles with the team in 1958, but wasn't happy there. After one season on the Coast, he died of a heart attack at the age of 28.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Johnny Pesky's noodle arm didn't help either.

Dom could have probably thrown Slaughter out at the plate without the need for a cutoff.

 

[Fading Fast]

...he died of a heart attack at the age of 28.

Holy Cow - any more color on why he died so young - just a freak thing or did he have a known heart condition?

 

[LizzieMaine]

He did have a history of heart trouble -- he'd had rheumatic fever as a child, which put an end to any hope of his having an athletic career of his own. And I imagine his smoking habit didn't help -- in addition to "The Brow," his other nickname was "Charlie the Chainsmoker."

Among his other claims to fame, he is also the only batboy in the history of the game to have an endorsement deal.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And here's a prime example of his mastery of the pen --

Every single signature on this cover is the work of "The Brow." Now that's talent.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

That's amazing...and disappointing, if someone thinks they have a "legitimate" signature on a baseball of that era, lol.

Rob

 

[2jakes]

That's amazing...and disappointing, if someone thinks they have a "legitimate" signature on a baseball of that era, lol.

Rob

Unless they were signed in front of you.

I did the “unthinkable”.

After the news interviews, I put my camera down and asked David Robinson (Spurs)
for his autograph on his rookie card which I bought at the mall.
Some of the other media guys frowned on me for doing that.
I also have Pres. Bush Sr. signing his “Desert Storm” card. I’m not into collecting
autographs, I just thought it was cool to have a President sign a card specially
when the other media were not permitted to get close to him. I got the ok from
the secret service guys to come up close. Just me and my camera,
my reporter had to stay back with the crowds behind roped barricades.
The video is in beta format though and I don’t have the machines at home
to view. No biggie.

Btw:
That image of Robinson holding his brand new jersey was at a
news conference in San Antonio, Texas.
I was there.

 

[Harp]

Just found a New York Times article, Boston Red Sox Used Apple Watches to Steal Signs Against Yankees. Well, well

 

[Ghostsoldier]

Rob

 

[Fading Fast]

Just found a New York Times article, Boston Red Sox Used Apple Watches to Steal Signs Against Yankees. Well, well

Maybe it will help Apple sell more watches as I believe the product has been a bit of a disappointed for them.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Well, that's not quite as sophisticated as Leo's telescope and buzzer, but it's a start.

 

[Fading Fast]

Well, that's not quite as sophisticated as Leo's telescope and buzzer, but it's a start.

Didn't the Pats get caught stealing plays with a video recorder or something several years ago?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Yep, "Videogate." I expect to see the New York Post tomorrow headlining "Applegate!"

Dumb move by Farrell, or whoever authorized this. Especially given the weekend's results. My mother called me in tears this afternoon wanting to know WHAT IN THE HELL they're thinking.

 

[Fading Fast]

Yep, "Videogate." I expect to see the New York Post tomorrow headlining "Applegate!"

Dumb move by Farrell, or whoever authorized this. Especially given the weekend's results. My mother called me in tears this afternoon wanting to know WHAT IN THE HELL they're thinking.

Two points that I make repeatedly here

• Some percentage of our population cheat / lie / steal / are corrupt / sneaky / cut corners / etc. be it in business, gov't or charities which is why we get these seriatim scandals in all three of those institutions

• In my decades in business, I've argued that NOT cheating is both morally correct and better for the long-term health of the business and (as an observer, I'd argue) better for the long term health of governments and charities that want to maintain the public's trust - but still, well, see the first bullet point

 

[LizzieMaine]

The paradox with baseball has always been that it's had a tendency to romanticize cheating, which makes it difficult for the game to take a high moral position and be taken seriously. Fans used to grow up on stories of "The Old Orioles" of the 1890s, with such players as John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson, and Willie Keeler taking advantage of every cheat they could think of in order to win. And in more recent times, spitball pitchers have been portrayed more as lovable scamps than as violators of the game's laws -- Whitey Ford, Preacher Roe, Lew Burdette, Gaylord Perry, and others. Roe, Burdette, and Perry all wrote books or magazine articles confessing to their cheating, and most people just winked and grinned. Oh those lovable scamps, what will they do next.

This even applies to more complex schemes -- about the only person who was genuinely upset when the truth came out about the Giants' sign-stealing scheme in 1951 was Ralph Branca. For everybody else it was just another colorful Durocher story. Or Eddie Stanky putting the game balls in the freezer and soaking down the infield at Comiskey Park to suppress hitting, since his guys couldn't hit anyway. Ah, the Brat -- he'll do anything to win. Is it any wonder baseball has never been able to take a firm stand against cheating? It's operating from a position of over a century's worth of looking the other way.

 

[Fading Fast]

The paradox with baseball has always been that it's had a tendency to romanticize cheating, which makes it difficult for the game to take a high moral position and be taken seriously. Fans used to grow up on stories of "The Old Orioles" of the 1890s, with such players as John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson, and Willie Keeler taking advantage of every cheat they could think of in order to win. And in more recent times, spitball pitchers have been portrayed more as lovable scamps than as violators of the game's laws -- Whitey Ford, Preacher Roe, Lew Burdette, Gaylord Perry, and others. Roe, Burdette, and Perry all wrote books or magazine articles confessing to their cheating, and most people just winked and grinned. Oh those lovable scamps, what will they do next.

This even applies to more complex schemes -- about the only person who was genuinely upset when the truth came out about the Giants' sign-stealing scheme in 1951 was Ralph Branca. For everybody else it was just another colorful Durocher story. Or Eddie Stanky putting the game balls in the freezer and soaking down the infield at Comiskey Park to suppress hitting, since his guys couldn't hit anyway. Ah, the Brat -- he'll do anything to win. Is it any wonder baseball has never been able to take a firm stand against cheating? It's operating from a position of over a century's worth of looking the other way.

This is a variation on a theme I've found which is that immoral business / gov't / charitable practices chase out moral ones. If everyone cheats "a bit" in baseball, then those who follow the rules fully are at a disadvantage, so it pushes them out as they constantly lose because, for example, their pitchers don't throw spitballs or their managers don't steal signals.

In business, one good example is US companies operating in some foreign countries where bribery is the de facto way one gets gov't licenses / permits / contracts / etc. If you don't bribe - you don't get business. And if you want to be an honest gov't official, you probably aren't paid enough as "grease" money is built into the pay scale. Also, the other gov't officials (and your gov't bosses) won't want you as you shine an light they don't want shined on how they "operate." They'll encourage you to "play along."

On and on it goes, but bad behavior chases out good.

 

[Harp]

The paradox with baseball has always been that it's had a tendency to romanticize cheating, which makes it difficult for the game to take a high moral position and be taken seriously. Fans used to grow up on stories of "The Old Orioles" of the 1890s, with such players as John McGraw, Wilbert Robinson, and Willie Keeler taking advantage of every cheat they could think of in order to win. And in more recent times, spitball pitchers have been portrayed more as lovable scamps than as violators of the game's laws -- Whitey Ford, Preacher Roe, Lew Burdette, Gaylord Perry, and others. Roe, Burdette, and Perry all wrote books or magazine articles confessing to their cheating, and most people just winked and grinned. Oh those lovable scamps, what will they do next.

This even applies to more complex schemes -- about the only person who was genuinely upset when the truth came out about the Giants' sign-stealing scheme in 1951 was Ralph Branca. For everybody else it was just another colorful Durocher story. Or Eddie Stanky putting the game balls in the freezer and soaking down the infield at Comiskey Park to suppress hitting, since his guys couldn't hit anyway. Ah, the Brat -- he'll do anything to win. Is it any wonder baseball has never been able to take a firm stand against cheating? It's operating from a position of over a century's worth of looking the other way.

excellent commentary.

 

[Ghostsoldier]

And yet, they won't let Shoeless Joe, Buck Weaver or Pete Rose into the HOF. *smh*

Rob

 

[2jakes]

1917

Joe with 'Greatest Slugger' trophy, 1949. Photo courtesy of Henry Yee Auctions & Archives.

 

[Fading Fast]

And yet, they won't let Shoeless Joe, Buck Weaver or Pete Rose into the HOF. *smh*

Rob

Another distorted outcome of systems (business, gov't and charities) that accept a certain amount of cheating is that they are inconsistent in their enforcement and sometimes "crack down hard" to regain some credibility. It's all brutally unfair because who really knows where the line is - how much and what type of cheating is allowed?