Towards the end of January cricket and base ball researcher
Jimmy Leiderman posted a Baseball Field Diagram published in Venezuelan newspaper from 1895 on his Facebook page. With his permission I'm sharing it here.
It made me wonder what other base ball field diagrams were printed, and can we learn anything about the evolution of the game? Off to my favorite haunts to research. One of the first ones that I came across was an experimental diamond.
 |
| The Sporting Life - November 5, 1892 |
In 1892 civil engineer Clifford B. Spencer, of Rolla, Missouri, submitted a proposal to the Chicago National League club (then the Colts) for a new baseball diamond. One with four bases and a home plate. A transcription of the article from
The Sporting Life follows the images below.
A DIAMOND CHANGE.
-----------
PROPOSED RADICAL ALTERATION IN
THE FORM OF THE BALL FIELD.
-----------
The Good and Bad Points of the
Scheme and Probable Consequences
of Adoption Pointed Out.
-----------
On this page we present for the consideration
of the rule-makers, and the comment of
all interested in the improvement of the same
of base ball, a new diamond. This proposed new
diamond is the creation of Mr. Cliff B. Spencer, of Rolla, Mo., who furnishes the diagram
and specifications. It was first submitted to
the Chicago Club and then turned over to
THE SPORTING LIFE by President Hart
with earnest request for publication and comment.
In the accompanying diagram of this new
diamond the dotted lines represent the present
diamond, and the heavier black lines
present the new diamond, which in appearance
approaches nearer the true diamond
form than what is now designated as a diamond, although really a square.
The proposed new diamond is a startling innovation, but the more it is studied the more
favorably it impresses. The new diamond provides for a home base and four additional
bases instead of three as now. This extra base would not, however, necessitate an additional
infielder unless it is desired to make the game ten men and ten innings, which increase
has been repeatedly suggested for many years by some excellent critics. Under
the new system four men could attend to the
infield as now the first baseman and second
baseman taking care of their usual bases, the
short stop becoming third baseman, while
the present third baseman would be fourth baseman. A glance at the diagram will show
that the new base lines would throw first and
fourth bases about ten feet further out than
the present base lines, thus making a very
much larger area for fair balls, thereby increasing the batting very considerably, besides reducing the number of foul balls.
It will be observed that the distances from second base to third base and from third base
to fourth base are each but 70 feet. This
would give the base-runners better chance of
stealing bases. It is true, the catcher's
throwing distance is decreased from about
128 or 129 feet to 120 or 122 feet, and he is in
a better position to throw the ball going diagonally
across the diamond and there being
no obstacle such as pitcher or umpire in the
way. But the advantage would be still somewhat in favor of the runner, which is better
than with the present dimensions, under
which the ball, if properly handled, must inevitably and invariably beat the fleetest runner
if the pitcher does not give him too much
start.
Increased base-running would not, however,
mean so many more runs as to make
games seem tedious and scores look bad, because
the distance from the plate to first base
and from fourth base to the plate is still
ninety feet and the entire circuit thirty feet
more than the present circuit. Thus, while
there would be more base-running on the short
lines, the additional circuit distance, and the long
distances between home and first and
fourth and home, would operate against excessive run-scoring.
-----------
The palpable advantages of the proposed
new diamond may be briefly summed up a
follows:
* Increased batting even with the pitchers in
their present position.
* A very marked decrease in the number of
foul balls due to extended base lines and
larger area for fair batted balls.
* Increased base stealing with better opportunity
for good plays by catchers, and with
less wear and tear upon the throwing arms
of catchers.
* A livelier fielding game, owing to larger fielding area and more chances resulting from increase
in batting.
No decided disadvantage are apparent in
this proposed new diamond except that it
may operate to the extreme in batting, base
running and run-scoring. The first-named
objection, could, however be easily overcome
by deadening the ball somewhat more should
the batting become too heavy. The second
and third detects may be neutralized by the
greater opportunities afforded catchers for
good throwing work and the increased length
of the circuit of the bases.
The proposed new diamond, if adopted,
would be a radical innovation. But it may
be that a radical remedy is requisite to restore
the base ball patient to entire health
and vigor. It is generally conceded that
some changes in the game are urgently needed in order to make it more attractive,
to lift it out of the rut of pitcher-domination
into which it has fallen; in short that it is necessary
to evolve some new feature to at once
challenge and rivet public attention and favor.
The proposed diamond would certainly
achieve that much. The very novelty of it
would arouse public attention and interest.
But whether it would hold that interest permanently
can only be ascertained by a trial
of the plan, which could be done in some of the April exhibition games.
If found satisfactory the new diamond
might, and doubtless would, go a long way
toward tilling the base ball parks next season,
as the novelty would bring out all the
old-time lovers and patrons of the game, if
only out of curiosity. Once back, the merits
of the sport under new conditions might once
more make these old-timers permanent patrons
and enthusiasts, as of old. For the
general public the innovation would also, for
a time at least, serve as a magnet. The new
diamond would also stir the amateur and semi-professional clubs and players into renewed
activity everywhere. Last, but not least, the innovation would bring out many new points and complications in rules and practice, thus opening numerous avenues
for discussion of the artistic aide of the game,
and keeping it constantly before the public
in its best and brightest aspect.
-----------
Having shown in all fairness the apparent
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed
new diamond and the probable effects
of its adoption, we submit the measure for
the consideration of the press, public and
magnates without further committing our
selves thereto.
It is not intended here to advocate, either
reservedly or unreservedly, the adoption of
this radical innovation, because there is an
other less radical method available for
achieving pretty much the same beneficial
effects that have been pointed out above as a
probable result of the adoption of the proposed
new diamond.
In perhaps our next issue we shall present
at length and comment fully upon this other
less radical and perhaps more certain
method of placing the sport upon a permanent
basis and restoring it to supreme popular
favor and support.
The choice of methods will then rest with
the magnates. EDITOR SPORTING LIFE.
Spencer's diagram and the article were later published in newspapers across the country. I do not know if the proposed field was ever chalked out and played upon. I'm not a math guy, but I'd be interested to know what the increased area would be for the Spencer's field.
1895 Venezuelan diagram courtesy of Jimmy Leiderman
The Sporting Life images from LA84.org
