Baseball 2016: touching base with seven new books

Here’s an around-the-horn look at a lineup of diverse releases:

6. ‘The Great Baseball Revolt: The Rise and Fall of the 1890s Players League,’ by Robert B. Ross

One of the most radical experiments in professional sports occurred, remarkably enough, in baseball more than 120 years ago. Baseball’s Players League enjoyed only a one-year existence in 1890 as it attempted to establish a circuit partly controlled and owned by the players themselves.  “The Great Baseball Revolt” traces the events that led to this bold effort to empower players who sought an alternative to the established National League, with its salary cap and rules that bound players to one team. The Players League fielded teams in Boston, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, New York, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh, and managed to lure many of the best players away from the National League while outdrawing the NL at the gate.Yet the National League’s hardball tactics of over inflating its attendance and profits served to sink the Players League, which as a short-lived startup depended heavily on funding from wealthy capitalists.

Here’s an excerpt from The Great Baseball Revolt:

“In a series of measures issued during the late 1870s and 1880s, the [National League] restricted players’ behavior both on and off the field, mobility from one team to another, and ability to contest these and other measures. In doing so the National League managed to significantly reduce player salaries without reducing the game’s ticket prices, level of play, or popularity.

“Starting in 1877 National League players were charged fifty cents per day on road trips to cover part of their travel expenses. They were also required to buy, clean, repair, and replace their own uniforms. Umpires and club owners were authorized to fine players up to twenty dollars for using profanity on the playing field.”

6 of 7

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.