Those "big mitts" of 1908

[okdoak]

I remember my Dad scoffing at the size of outfielders' gloves back in the 70s and 80s. If I raved about a great catch I'd seen on TV his reply was always; "I'd like to see him make that catch with the glove that Andy Pafko used!" (He grew up as a Cubs fan in the 1940s) or "Anybody can make that catch wearing those bushel baskets they call gloves these days!" I had no idea that debate started way before my Dad's time, though. This is from a 1908 Sporting Life, quoting a recent (at that time) article written by the baseball editor of the Boston Globe:

"Bar big gloves from baseball and batting averages will bob up. The real artist can play without gloves or mitts. The old-timers worked without gloves. Take the mitts off present players and see how many great stars are left. The big mitt has made the ball player. Men break into the game simply because they can hit. The big mitt does the rest. Sporting goods manufacturers are responsible for the big gloves. Outfielders should be compelled to catch in their bare hands or use very small gloves. The only exceptions should be the catcher and perhaps the first baseman. Without big mitts, batting averages would jump. More action and harder hitting would make baseball more thrilling than it is now." Bet he wasn't too happy with those new horseless carriages, either.

[Number9]

This is one of those discussions that will never cease. A hundred years from now, if baseball is still being played, old timers will discredit the game's future kings because of their technological advances. It's funny the way that works. It's also interesting how the list of debatable advances continues to grow..... from bigger gloves to rock maple bats, drugs, weight training, video, etc. Combine that with a look back at the HOF induction process each year and you can see how the tide of opinion is constantly changing the way we look at yesterday's stars compared to today's.

[softball66]

This is a KEY discussion to the functionality of gloves and some salient ideas submitted by Greg and William! Right on the money. Here's my 2 cents for what it's worth.
When I interviewed Bill Werber (Yankees/Reds) for the newsletter years ago, I asked him about how they "used" the gloves that they did, compared to the more modern ones. He told me that was what they had to play with and those gloves worked for them. Made sense. Just as Wagner and Speaker used what they had. The Doak pockets changed the fielding defensive game in the 1920s and probably helped mediate the lively ball era that arrived in that decade.
Years ago I did an experiment with my fellow softball players and let them use the older gloves to see how they would catch with the 1920s gloves as compared with the modern gloves. Here's what I observed. The weaker players had more trouble with the older gloves than the more gifted fielders. The modern glove(s) seemed to help the weaker fielders more in catching the ball. The better fielders could handle the older, less efficient gloves easier than the weaker players.
It's interesting to see that it's the ability of the better fielders to adapt to whatever he has to use as a function. I remember from reading the ace pilot Chuck Yeager's book years ago, that during the Korean war we had captured an intact Mig15 Russian made fighter. As a test, Yeager and one of America's leading aces tested the two planes against each other in mock dogfights. Yeager took the F86 American Saber and beat the Ace in the Mig15. They switched planes and Yeager waxed the American flyer in the Mig15 with the Ace flying the F86.
I see this type of argument coming up in the modern glove forum from time, which glove is best, what doesn't seem to work, etc. Hard vs. soft. Web changeouts, sizes etc. And, to a degree, the points are well made but it is the player and his adaptability to the glove and what is comfortable and works for him that is the final factor. I know Brooks Robinson would experiment and play with different gloves as he would develop a "feel" for those particular gloves.
I want to see the local re-enactment teams play the 1800s baseball without the gloves. I will report back.

[okdoak]

Well said William and Joe. We know that fielding percentages have gone up with the evolution of the glove, but I agree that the great ones still would have been great regardless of the size or style of their gloves. Much has been written about say Joe DiMaggio who was so good at positioning himself and reacting to the ball leaving the bat that he made the tough catches look easy or the speed and reflexes of Willie Mays in tracking down a ball. I think you do see more home runs caught by leaping outfielders these days (and wearing a 13 inch glove has to help) but the fact that the outfield walls are padded and players can climb them is the bigger difference. Also wonder if Ron Swoboda's incredible catch in the 1969 WS would be possible with a small sewn web. My jaw still drops every time I see the video of it. But who knows, maybe Joe Jackson or Tris Speaker make that catch, too. Anyway, we've seen that changes in the composition of the ball or raising the mound and expanding the strike zone (thinking of 1968, The Year of the Pitcher) have had a more drastic effect on hitting than the evolution of the glove.

[cbrandis]

just an idea of what the changes in gloves did to the fielding percentages thru the years.

[Number9]

Interesting graphic. I'm sure the standard for what constitutes an error on the official scorecard may have been different in 1900, however, I'm actually surprised that the fielding percentages were so high in those days. Executing 942 chances out of 1000 is still pretty damn good considering what they were using.

[softball66]

thanks Carmi and Bill for more data and ideas.
Note, the chart, appears to be "Rawlings" biased chart with mention of the Doak, certainly warranted, and the Trapper (significant 1b improvement but that's only one position but the mitt undoubtedly helped pick up those infielder throws in the dirt. That said, from the Doak introduction through the 40s the gloves got better with deeper pockets, improved webs, so we could attribute
the gradual improvement to those enhancements over that period. What I was looking for, and the chart is a little small is the late 1950s hinge style A2000s, XPGs, etc. I think I see this with a spike in the
1960s but then there's a drop off in the 1970s ??? Then back up the scale in the '90s forward and this could be attributed to the gloves getting larger and larger, esp. outfielders. Do we remember the rule that MLB was going to enforce on the 12 inch limit rule about 1990? It never took hold as the managers wouldn't call it if it was violated (my understanding of what happened).
William's point on what constituted a scorer's decision on an error was much more lenient in early baseball and as gloves improved, the scorers were seeing balls they thought should be caught through their time periods. In short, a small, flat web era glove fielder would get more leeway than a 1950s forward fielder with a far better glove. SABR math has really never delved into how to determine fielding prowess even though range factor has been introduced. The farther one ranges the more apt for an error (in the eyes of the scorer). The fielder with little range has more of a routine play to make than the more dexterous player. Errors are always subjective (the Buckner play notwithstanding) . And fielding, unlike batting, seems far more random.

[stockbuddy]

Hi Guys,

I have always thought it would be interesting for the current mlb players to put play a few games with old timer gloves and mitts and see how they adapt to it. The mlb players are very good at adapting but it would be fun to watch the process unfold.

Can you imagine the shortstop playing with a 1920's glove.
Joe, are you snowed-in in Texas?
Dave

[okdoak]

Found this chart showing fielding errors from 1901 to 1988. Thought it was interesting that it's pretty level from about 1950 on. When Ted Williams was asked (bet he got tired of answering that question after a while) why no one has managed to hit .400 after him, his opinion was "better gloves and the slider."

[softball66]

Greg, I think that's the same chart a news article used when the stir for MLB to enforce the 12" glove rule in 1990s I believe. I do remember Bob Clevenhagen saying he would have to re-tool his glove models. Not sure he undertook this but the rule was never "dusted off" apparently. Rollie Latina was quoted as telling major league outfielder that he would give them an "additional step" by providing them with a bigger glove.
I think this had something to do with the extended rolled lace webs, (Red Rolfe RR Rawlings) etc. of the late 1940s, early 1950s. A little more "reach."
David, snowed in but not "slowed" in. They've sent out the roster for our senior slow pitch team and I'm oiling up my 14" Nokona AMG400K.

[johnmilner]

I personally prefer a smaller glove. In my "heyday" I used an 11-ish" glove. Dusting off my cleats a few years back, my father bought me a big
outfielder's mitt (my old glove had torn at the thumb junction) and it felt like I was carrying a leather bedsheet.
It was far too large and I really felt uncomfortable with it. Elite Athletes can adapt pretty quickly to equipment changes and I'm willing to bet that the pure athleticism of today's
ballplayers could compensate for a smaller mitt, even a splitfinger glove of old.