Visiting Major League Parks – Complete Set from the 1933-1934 Sporting News

Similar to my Burns-Eye Views of Big League Parks post a while back, from the 1937 Sporting News, this is another interesting series I discovered in the SN archives from a few years earlier, during the 1933-1934 offseason – detailed articles of the major league parks of the day. I had posted them individually in their respective threads and now also as one post over at the Baseball-Fever.com ballparks area (as my alpineinc alter ego), and am now posting them as one on this blog, for all to see and enjoy at once.

The Sporting News’ editor introduces the series upon publication of the first article in the series, on 11/23/33:

“Fans in many major league cities have never seen the parks of clubs other than their own and are not acquainted with their different features and peculiarities, which, in some cases, have a marked effect on the batters of the home team and of visiting clubs. With a view to introducing these fields, the Sporting News has arranged for a series of stories and pictures of the various parks, which will be printed from time to time.”

Unfortunately, unlike the Burns’ 1937 series, to my knowledge, this series is incomplete, with only 10 articles printed and 6 parks of the era not represented in this series: Cleveland Municipal Stadium (Indians were back at League Park in 1934 when that article was printed), neither New York City NL park (Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds), neither Philadelphia park at all (Baker Bowl and Shibe Park), nor Griffith Stadium. It is also somewhat less colorful than the Burns series. However, it does provide greater detail and information on each park highlighted, and provides another interesting perspective of the ballparks and the state of the game from the 1930’s.

The series published was printed in chronological order as follows:

1. Forbes Field (Pittsburgh Pirates) – published 11/23/33
2. Comiskey Park (Chicago White Sox) – 12/7/33
3. Yankee Stadium (New York Yankees) – 12/28/33
4. Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs) – 1/11/34
5. League Park (Cleveland Indians) – 2/1/34
6. Redland Field (Cincinnati Reds) – 2/8/34
7. Fenway Park (Boston Red Sox) – 2/15/34
8. Sportsman’s Park (St Louis Cardinals and St Louis Browns) – 3/1/34
9. Braves Field (Boston Braves) – 3/15/34
10. Navin Field (Detroit Tigers) – 3/22/34

Links to larger versions are below each image for easier reading. Enjoy!

snvp1forbes

Larger version

 

snvp2comiskey

Larger version

 

snvp3yankeenew

Larger version

 

snvp4wrigleynew

Larger version

 

snvp5leagueparknew

Larger version

 

snvp6redlandnew

Larger version

 

snvp7fenwaynew

Larger version

 

snvp8sportsmansnew

Larger version

 

snvp9bravesnew

Larger version

 

snvp10navinnew

Larger version

 

Advertisements

Burns-Eye Views of Big Time Parks, #11 (and #11a) – Cleveland Municipal Stadium and League Park

In 1937, Ed Burns, a sportswriter for the Chicago Tribune, penned a series of articles on every major league park at the time (15 articles in all, of 16 parks for 16 teams; the Cardinals and Browns shared Sportsman’s Park in St. Louis, while the Indians played in both League Park and Cleveland Municipal Stadium that year, with one article for both), which were also published in the Sporting News that year.

A very interesting series, especially from the perspective of 1937, and the hand-drawn diagrams of interesting plays and quirks of each park are wonderful. I’ll post them in order of when they were originally published, and one at a time to make things interesting. Click the Burns-Eye Views of Big Time Parks category link to the right to see all the articles together.

Eleventh in the series, and a bonus 2 for 1 here. The Indians were in the midst of a slow transition to cavernous Cleveland Municipal Stadium, where they had been playing some games since 1932, but the large size of the park coupled with the lingering Great Depression and lower attendance, kept the Tribe playing in smaller League Park as well. The cozier park had its charms, but according to Burns boasted “the silliest dimensions in the American League” and a “joke right field wall”, also noted in the drawn diagram as well. In fact, Burns even argued that League Park put the Indians at a disadvantage, as the locals tried to perfect the “ladle” of a batted ball over the short right field wall, which also resulted in easy pop flies on the road and made the team “all mixed up”. So, it only made sense that the Indians would eventually move full-time to the “best ball park in America”, and its symmetrical layout is also highly praised here; but, while Cleveland Municipal was a fine stadium in its own right, I’d guess that Burns and his cohorts spent little time in the park during blustery April contests.

11clevelands

Now batting, NUMBER THREE, Babe Ruth…

RuthuniTheBabeWearsno3ForTheFirstTime-April19293ForTheFirstTime-April1929-001
Babe Ruth in his first year wearing #3, 1929

 

Buntingindicateseither1927or1928-001

Yankee Stadium, Opening Day, April 18, 1929. And if you look close (or click the photo to see the larger version), something is unusual about the players in this photo. A sharp eye reveals that the hometown Yankees have numbers on their backs (with Gehrig’s #4 at first base most prominent), while the visiting Red Sox do not. As it turns out, this is the first year (and the first game) that the Yankees introduced numbers to their already iconic uniforms.

As the article below states, “There is never anything half measure about the way Colonel Ruppert does things. When he built the Stadium he gave baseball the biggest arena of its kind in the world. And when he decided to number his players he got them the largest numerals that money could buy and still fit on a baseball uniform. The numbers proved an unqualified success. They are clearly discernible to the naked eye.

1916 Indians

Actually, Ruppert wasn’t entirely original in this idea. At the beginning of the 20th century, a few minor league and traveling/barnstorming teams experimented with numbers, but on the players’ sleeves. The first major league team to try the idea was the 1916 Cleveland Indians, who did it for a few weeks in mid-season, and again for a short time in 1917, but was quickly abandoned.

Harry_McCurdy_(1923_Cardinals)_3

Harry McCurdy, 1923 Cardinals

Later, the 1923 St. Louis Cardinals gave it a try, but, per Wiki, as then-manager Branch Rickey recalled, the Cardinals’ players were “subjected to field criticism from the stands and especially from opposing players,” so the numbers were removed.

Also, the aforementioned Indians had also planned to introduce numbers on uniform backs for the 1929 season, and both teams were scheduled to open their seasons on the same day, April 16, but the Yankees were rained out, so the Indians have the honor of playing the first MLB game with proper uniform numbers. The Yankees couldn’t introduce their soon-to-be-legendary digits until April 18 (above). And as the only two teams wearing them, the first game featuring numbers on every player was the first meeting of the Indians and Yankees that year, on May 13 (in Cleveland, at League Park).

What would have been interesting is to see one team on the field with numbers, and one without. And one can just imagine the fans seeing the numbers for the first time and the interesting chatter in the stands that day; some undoubtedly decrying the modernization of the game (“they look like racehorses out there”) while others marveling at how easy it is to tell who’s who now. I wouldn’t doubt that the numbers allowed more casual fans to become more involved in the games.

As most fans know, interestingly, the Yankees were intially numbered according to their spot in the batting order on that first game in 1929 (except for the pitcher), as follows:

Combs cf #1
Koenig 3b #2
Ruth rf #3 (of course)
Gehrig 1b #4 (of course)
Meusel lf #5
Lazzeri 2b #6
Durocher ss #7 (yes, Leo Durocher was the Yankees SS in 1929!)
Grabowksi c #8

The remainder of the roster was apparently numbered as follows: The other two catchers were assigned #9 and #10, #11 through #21 were assigned to pitchers (except unlucky #13 wasn’t used), and #22 through #28 given to the remaining position players, then #29 and up assigned to coaches (manager Miller Huggins did not wear a number, but when he died suddenly in late 1929, coach Art Fletcher, #34, took over as manager and was then the first Yankee manager to have a number – good trivia question – stump your friends! Of course, this number system was too rigid to follow through the course of a season, and with pitchers going down or being released, new position players would take numbers in the 20’s, etc.

Times article from Opening Day 1929

Turns out numbered uniforms proved to be very popular indeed, with all teams having numbers by the 1930’s, including road uniforms, and now old baseball photos of uniforms without numbers look very unusual in modern times.

The Times itself had the understatement of all time in the article above: “In the event any one needs the information, Babe Ruth is No. 3. It is now expected he will make “3” as famous as the “77” Red Grange wore at Illinois.” Dare I say, Mr. Ruth’s #3 may be even a bit more famous than Mr. Grange’s #77 by now.

Veeck – as in yecch?

When baseball maverick Bill Veeck purchased the Cleveland Indians in mid-1946, he needed to appeal favorably to the Tribe’s fans, who hadn’t won anything since 1920, and by all accounts was very successful, improving the Indians’ fortunes greatly in 1947, including immediately getting all home games on radio, signing Larry Doby to break the AL color barrier, and then winning in all in 1948, still the Tribe’s last championship.

In purchasing the club, Veeck promptly published ads in the local Plain Dealer to assure the fans that they were committed to building a winner for Cleveland, two of which are shown below. Although painfully racist now (with mention of wigwams, papooses, and most offensive, injuns), the ads were good natured for the time and well received by the faithful. Definitely a time capsule from an age long gone.

48844h_lg

 

 

48844g_lg

(Click on photos for larger versions)