A search through baseball history is underway to identify a most unusual Stan Musial photo.
What if the greatest St. Louis Cardinals player ever, Stan Musial, didn’t always wear number 6 as has been reported for the last 70 years? It would be akin to catching Albert Pujols sporting something other than 5, a number that seems destined one day to be retired alongside Musial’s 6.
Actually, the latter did occur. It was during in spring training 2001 when the then-relatively unknown Pujols was assigned number 68. The attached photo offers proof. Of course, that didn’t last long as Albert soon stormed onto the major league scene, assigned his familiar number 5 forever more.
My Monday and Tuesday was turned upside down upon receiving a note Mike Oasheim sent to SABR member Mark Stang. Oasheim enclosed a photo from The Baseball Magazine supplement of young Musial. It was taken by well-known photographer William C. Greene of The New York World-Telegram and copyrighted in 1942.
Stan is not wearing number 6.
Greene is very familiar to Stang, the latter being the author of numerous books, including a Cardinals photo history entitled “Cardinals Collection, 100 Years of St. Louis Cardinals Photos”. Based on having viewed hundreds of the Greene’s photos, Stang observes that the photographer did all of his work in New York at either the Polo Grounds or Yankee Stadium.
Number 18 or 19
This sent an army of SABR members and researchers scurrying off to access Cardinals schedules, scorecards, box scores and rosters to try to determine when Stan would have been photographed in New York’s Polo Grounds against the Giants in late 1941 or during 1942 and when he might have worn number 18 or 19.
This seems an impossible task. That is about the time I joined the search.
When Musial came up to the Cardinals late in 1941, he was immediately assigned number 6, never to wear another jersey. I have seen this written about in many places, including at least three books. I re-confirmed with Cardinals Museum curator Paula Homan Tuesday morning that Stan always wore number 6 with St. Louis.
To date, all information unearthed by SABR members affirm Musial’s use of number 6 when playing in New York. Further, 1942 scorecards identify Cardinals Lon Warneke and Harry Gumbert as having worn the numbers in question in the games in question, Stang notes.
The Rochester theory
Musial’s uniform looks like the standard issue Cardinals wools from that timeframe, but the front is obscured by his swing. Something else looked odd to me. As I zoomed in on the cap logo, it was clear that it is not the standard “StL”. It is a bird.
I immediately wondered it might be a Rochester Red Wings cap. Just prior to joining the Cardinals late in the 1941 season, Stan played for the International League Red Wings, then St. Louis’ top minor league affiliate.
After Musial joined the Wings, I found a reference to him playing in Jersey City in front of GM Branch Rickey. In addition, Stang noted the Wings faced Newark in the 1941 IL post-season. Photographer Greene might easily have been dispatched from nearby New York, especially to cover the playoffs. The Newark Bears were the top Yankees’ farm club and had a most-impressive 100-54 record heading into the post-season.
The Red Wings are still in business today and though they are no longer associated with the Cardinals, they are a member of the family in a way. Rochester Community Baseball, the parent of the Wings, the Twins Triple-A affiliate, operates the Cardinals New York-Penn League affiliate, the Batavia Muckdogs.
Chuck Hinkel, the very helpful Wings PR director, has no record of what number Stan wore in 1941, but after reviewing the cap and jersey, he verified they do not match Rochester garb of the era. Hinkel also contacted the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown for assistance, but they have no photos of Musial as a Red Wing that indicate his uniform number.
The spring training theory
After I unearthed several other photos of Musial wearing a similar bird-logoed cap in spring training 1942 and Stang checked other archives, he gravitated to thinking that was the date of the photo. Stang cited the wooden supports of the grandstand roof in the background suggesting a minor league setting rather than a major league park.
Certainly trying to identify the background would help, but lacking specifics, we don’t know if the minor league park was in Florida rather than New Jersey. If the former, then we would also need to solve the mystery of why the New York photographer would have been in Florida when there is apparently no other record of him having shot photos there.
Then, of course, there is the question of why Musial would be wearing a number other than 6 in 1942 spring training after he had already played the final weeks of the 1941 major league season with 6 on his back.
Yet the idea of Stan wearing a higher number in spring training is hardly out of the question. What if it wasn’t in 1942 when he was already a major leaguer, but was earlier?
The Man’s man
I contacted Dick Zitzmann, Musial’s personal representative. He asserts the major league team wore the bird-logoed caps in that era and believes the photo is from spring training 1941.
Like the rest of this hunt, I am not so sure.
It seems less likely to me that Musial would justify an individual photo shoot in spring 1941, as he was considered a struggling low-level minor league player at the time. Musial, who was in the very early stages of trying to handle a conversion from pitching to the outfield after injuring his arm the previous summer, was reportedly worried he might be released. Biographies note that he was unwanted by the Cardinals’ A and B level clubs coming out of spring training 1941.
At best, Musial seemed destined to return to Class D for a fourth season after having pitched there the previous three seasons until Springfield’s Ollie Vanek agreed to take Stan for his Class C club in 1941. Vanek helped teach Stan how to play the outfield. Musial would excel most of the summer there (MO) before being promoted to Rochester, then ultimately St. Louis before the 1941 season ended.
I am hoping we can get Musial’s own view, but I don’t yet know about that.
More to come….
Follow me on Twitter.
From Jerald Vickery, co-author of the Cardinal Encyclopedia, via Facebook:
“Bob Broeg and I used that photo in the Cardinal Encyclopedia in 1998 and at the time I asked Butch Yatkeman he said # 19 was 1st number given to Stan, Harry Walker and Pep Young have been verified wearing #6 at differant times during 1941 According to Mark Stang’s “Baseball by the Numbers”. It would be great to verify the Scorecards any chance of getting Scans or photo’s.
I posed the Question once to Stan he never mentioned wearing #6 in 1941 . I never heard of going back and forth. The great thing would be just to see the scorecards because the paper drives during WWII make the early 1940′s scorecards extremely Rare. “
Some questions
1) How was the luxury tax threshold arrived at?
2) Does the attempt by Boston and NY to stay in range of that number have other considerations beyond money management?
3) Are the owners and the commissioner working together with a thought to the upcoming contract negotiations with the players union or a combination motivations?
4) There is an appearance at this point that agreements were made between Boston and NY concerning players and spending that may have been arbitrated by the commissioner. It looks to me like there was a necessity to make the Holiday contract reflect big spending, while at the same time holding spending at a very reasonable level. The salary partitioning on Cameron’s contract obviously had the consent of the commissioner office…………. We all know that there is allot of talent coming into FA in the next two years. If there is a president being set here, even just between these three entities, what does that speak for the future?
5) If this is a possibility, and I think it is, Albert could be could actually become a victim of a lottery type affair for cost control purposes, the loser doing no worse than second choice amongst the other first basemen……………………. We would never see evidence of this, except I think in the peculiarities of our closely studied, and much beloved Cardinals. I am watching this with interest. With as much talent that is floating around in the dead pool, it would be hard not to peck at a carcass or two, unless you’re sending a message of some sort.
PHE, so it sounds like we need 1941 scorecards to find a reference to Stan wearing #19. Is that your interpretation?
Seems if it was copyrighted in 1942 that is when it was most likely taken.
Greene’s photos for the NY World Telepgraph would be available through the Library of Congress since they were given the rights but since this one appears to have been taken for The Baseball Magazine those rights would seem to be elsewhere.
The Joyce Sports Research Collection of the Department of Special Collections, University Libraries of Notre Dame was the only place I could find via Google that has the entire magazine collection on file (but not on line). If the picture was published in the magazine a librarian there might be able to help you.
Could be? Although Stang mentioned in his e-mail to the SABR list that he has scorecards from late September of ’41 that have Musial in the starting lineup and wearing 6.
I assume it’s possible that scorecards from his first game or two with the big club in ’41 might show a 19?
Mystery for sure.
You are right, PHE. I missed it the first time I went through the Encyclopedia. Here it is on page 258:
It is amazing that apparently none of the numerology sources caught this. Even the Cardinals museum director believed that Stan always wore #6.
So a likely conclusion is that this photo is from the last two weeks of the 1941 season.
Would be great to find a scorecard other than those that Stang already has from those 1941 games to confirm…
Also, HOF Dressed to the Nines exhibit does seem to show some sort of “alternate” uniform that included the bird logo cap from 1941 – that cap is not shown for 1942.
http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/dressed_to_the_nines/uniforms.asp?city=St.%20Louis&league=NL&sort=year&increment=9&pos=37
Yes, I saw that cap on the HoF site last night but could not make out the detail. I have a 1942 spring training photo with Stan wearing the same bird cap next to Southworth wearing the StL logoed one.
Here is a problem. Looking at the 1941 schedule, the Cardinals played Brooklyn and the Giants from September 11-16, but the games were in StL. The Cards with Musial did not play in NY for the remainder of the 1941 season.
Could the background be Sportsman’s Park? Did Greene travel on the road with the NY teams? Brooklyn and the Cards were in a pennant battle. Did Stan report to the Cardinals earlier than his September 17 debut? On the 17th, the Cards were just one game behind the Dodgers in the standings.
I guess another alternative would be that Stan started spring 1942 with #19 and was issued #6 sometime during camp – after the photo was taken? But what would the NY photographer have been doing in Cardinals camp in Florida? (Edit: This also conflicts with Stang’s scorecard with Stan wearing #6 in September 1941.)
More questions…
Epstein and Cashman are both smart guys. They dont need a used car salesman telling them that detente is cheaper and will yield the same result at this point. What they didn’t already know I’m sure they have highly paid game theory consultants telling them.
I know to Westie everything is a conspiracy though. I guess that makes it more interesting.
PHE said this: “Although Stang mentioned in his e-mail to the SABR list that he has scorecards from late September of ‘41 that have Musial in the starting lineup and wearing 6.”
Stan is confirmed wearing #6 in late Sept., 1941, so unless he was switched back again to #19, anything after late Sept., 1941 would have him as #6. I guess the investigation is confined to the period prior to late 09/41.
It gets down to the actual dates in late September 1941. Stan’s debut was on September 17. Stang mentioned Stan was #6 on the Cubs scorecard for the final two games, the 27th and 28th. Maybe he changed numbers in the ten days in between?
But again, did the NY photographer stay in StL after the NY teams left? Was the photo maybe taken on Stan’s first day(s) as a major leaguer?
His first game was the 17th, did they have an off day before where there could have been a workout? Could there have been a pregame workout and then a change of jersey (for some reason)? If so, I doubt you’ll ever solve the mystery.
Riddle #1 is when the photo was taken:
Cards played the NY Giants at home on the 16th. Looks like that game was not completed (1-1 after 10 innings – weather or darkness?). Both clubs were off on the 15th after playing two on the 14th.
(Edit: The Giants then moved from StL to PIT, where they played starting the 17th.)
Riddle #2 is when Musial apparently switched from #19 to #6.
If Stang’s September 27-28, 1941 scorecard is correct that Musial was already wearing #6, the account of Musial not being issued #6 until spring of 1942 as noted in The St. Louis Cardinals Encyclopedia is inaccurate. The two definitely seem to be at odds.
Some of the reference sources…
“The Cardinals Journal” by John Snyder says this in the entry for September 17, 1941:
“The Cardinals Encyclopedia” by Mike Eisenbath says this about Stan’s 1941 debut:
The book, “Now Batting, Number…” by Jack Looney says that Musial played his entire MLB career wearing number 6:
Found another interesting reference in “The St. Louis Cardinals Encyclopedia” by Broeg and Vickery.
The implication between the two Broeg/Vickery references is that Young was cut during 1942 spring training, which is when Stan took number 6. So far, I cannot find the date of the Young transaction. I see Young spent the entire 1942-44 seasons and part of 1945 back down in Columbus before returning to StL.
So we have 1941 scorecards plus three reference books at odds with the fourth… Not saying which is right. Just noting the source of some of the confusion.
I don’t think the photo is sportsman’s park. Babe Ruth played left field there because the sun was so bad in right. Home plate was in the southwest, around toward the WSW. So, in the morning, shadows would have pointed towards the stands behind the first base line, but only after the sun was high enough to clear the right field grandstands. The shadows would move around towards left center by noon and pointing toward right by late afternoon. In the photo the shadow and the lighting in general shows it to be daytime (even though there were lights by 1941). The shadow is not pointing toward an outfield wall. If it is Sportsman’s park, it would have to be in the morning and shadow pointing toward foul territory on the first base side, and probably would have been blocked by the right field grandstand. The fairly short length of the shadow suggests to me it is closer to noon, especially if it is September, and would have to be pointing to the left or left center field wall in Sportsman’s. Also, I would not think players would be wearing a good uniform just to work out, so it must have been before a game. A good while before the game though due to the absence of people around especially in the stands in the background. So I would say the photo was taken before a road game which probably started in mid afternoon.
LHP Rich Hill signs with STL & will be coming to spring training as a non-roster invitee #stlcards
This is actually a crucial move . It means that the powder is now being taken back to the dryer.
Here’s another reference, if it’s of any help. From Musial’s “autobiography,” which is actually ghosted by Broeg. This passage is about his first day in the majors in September 1941:
“When Butch Yatkeman handed out uniforms, he surveyed us with the experienced eye of a tailor and threw us what he thought would fit best. The uniforms, of course, bore numbers then unassigned. I drew number ’6.’ I’ve never worn any other in the big leagues . . . ”
– “Stan Musial: ‘The Man’s’ Own Story (As Told to Bob Broeg,” 1964, Doubleday & Company Inc., Garden City, New York
sf, I consider that to be great help. That is the one book I wanted, but could not lay my hands on.
It does seem a bit odd they were handing out uniforms in that manner in September. That feels more like a first-day of spring training observation. On the other hand, Musial’s memory in 1964 of what happened in 1941 is better than anyone else’s memory. If he says he only wore #6, then that is hard to refute.
WC, I posted a detailed article with all the NRIs on the main site. I hope they are not counting on Hill like they supposedly did with Matt Clement. The last Cards lefty coming off labrum surgery was Mark Mulder. Even before, Hill had control problems the Cubs said were mental. I won’t make that parallel with another ex-Cardinal left-hander.
You’d think with an open 5th starter position the Cards could do better than that. Heck, I’d rather have given Welly an NRI. Past history says the Duncan magic doesn’t work on Steve Blass disease.
On the passing out of uniforms in September 1941: Musial says that he, Kurowski, Walt Sessi and Erv Dusak all reported from the minors on the same day, so a mass uniform fitting is plausible.
Please, CC, no Wellemeyer references. I’m going to have nightmares tonight.
sf, great point on the multiple reportees. I had read that previously, but forgotten it. In that context, Musial’s recollection does make sense. Now, where did that darned #19 come from?
I am fine with the starters already on the team. If they can steal Smoltz, fine, but if not, it won’t be the end.
Any chance that’s not”the man” in the photo?
Yes, I am 99.9 percent sure it is Stan. Here is the photo I mentioned earlier from a different book that is captioned spring training 1942. Note no wartime patch on Musial’s sleeve (added in 1942 at some point), the same cap as in the other photo (but different from his manager’s) and the same boyish look. (Edit: Now, both are Hall of Famers!)
bb, I should have added my thanks for sharing your impressive knowledge of Sportsman’s Park. I mean that most sincerely. Impressive.
The photo is definitely of Musial – the stance is unmistakenable, plus it’s his face!
The Park in the background certainly LOOKS like the Polo Grounds, but could be another 1940′s era park.
The uniform is St. Louis Cardinals, not Rochester. The cap with the Red Bird was worn in games only in 1941, not 1942. However, the ‘birds on the bat’ cannot be clearly seen the way Musial is turned.
Musial did not play a MLB game in the Polo Grounds until May, 1942.
This photographer worked for a paper that did not send him on the road – he took all of his photos in New York.
Realized one other point, sf, which you probably already did. Broeg co-wrote one version of the story in Stan’s book apparently based on Stan’s memories and co-wrote a different version in the encyclopedia based on Butch Yatkeman’s recollection. Granted, the encyclopedia was 35 years after the autobiography. Wish Broeg was still with us to ask about that.
Thanks, KJOK and welcome. Haven’t seen you around in awhile.
I blew up the photo last night and am quite sure the logo on the cap is the bird.
Given your points, how can you explain the existence of the photo? Perhaps Musial continued to wear the 1941 cap into the 1942 season as we see he apparently did at least in spring training? But why is he wearing #19 in NY in May 1942 or later? And when in 1942 did the wartime patch appear on the left sleeve?
These puzzle pieces aren’t fitting together yet.
From a psychological standpoint………… how could he catch with that glove! Looks more like a star fish that wouldn’t let go.
You say the paper didn’t send him on the road. However the photo says it was from The Baseball Magazine. It is possible he did work for other publications (like this one) that did send him out of NY. And, if he was covering baseball in general for a national magazine, the photo could have been taken at any major league park.
Were home and road uniforms the same in those days?
CC, there were homes and roads that appear to be the same except color. See the link in PHE’s post #8.
WC, I guess they didn’t know any better that they couldn’t catch with those gloves.
Based on the uniform link, it could very well be a road uni from 1941 or 1942, but I would suggest reject 1942 because there is no patch for the war.* In the link it looks like the 1941 road uni is darker than the road uni in 1942 but those are drawings and might not be the exact shade as pictured.
*unless there is a goofy reason in spring training before the patch was being sewn on for Musial to wear # 19
If it is spring that could explain no fans in the stands and the New York World-Sun sent Greene down there for ST.
Didn’t the Yankees train in Tampa or even share Al Lang in St. Pete with the Cardinals?
This is an interesting puzzle, thanks for sharing it Brian.
In my posting about Sportsman’s Park above, there is a mistake
” If it is Sportsman’s park, it would have to be in the morning and shadows pointing toward foul territory on the first base side,”
That should be ‘third base side’. In the morning the sun would have risen behind right field, casting shadows toward foul territory behind the third base line. By noon the sun would have been behind the first base line casting shadows toward the left /left center field wall. By late afternoon the sun would be in the right fielders face with shadows pointing toward the right field wall. The conclusion is the same, if it is Sportsman’s Park in September, the photo would have to have been taken early in the morning.
Looks like the Cards didn’t play at Al Lang until 1947
Photographic evidence against both Sportsman’s Park and the Polo Grounds.
Here are a couple of photos of the stands on the third base side at Sportsman’s Park. There are no columns near the field of play, they are set well back. In one photo you can see the late afternoon shadows pointing to right field.
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/sportsmans7255.jpg
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/sportsmans728.jpg
Here are a couple of the first base side
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/sportsmans726.jpg
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/sportsmans727.jpg
Here is the outfield wall
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/sportsnight.jpg
This is the grandstand behind home plate
http://www.ballparktour.com/Sportsmans_Park.html
So it’s clear the photo of Stan is not at Sportsman’s.
- – - – - – -Polo Grounds- – - – - – - -
Photos of the polo grounds shows the upper deck is set back from the field so that the columns are set well up into the lower deck seating, and are not near the field of play, except in two areas:
This is left field and the left field corner.
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/polo902.jpg
This is right field and the right field corner.
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/polo902.jpg
In both photos the columns come down right behind the outfield wall.
This aerial view shows how the upper deck is set back from the field except in those two areas.
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/polo98.jpg
So, it seems like the photo is not the Polo grounds.
Good job bling,
Would have to agree that neither park is the one. Nice work.
Since the photographer may have worked just in NY I looked at Ebbets Field.
Ebbets field is similar to the Polo grounds. The only place the columns are not set well back is in left field, and they come down behind the wall there as well. I don’t know where else in New York the the photo could have been taken.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ebbets+field&FORM=IGRE2#focal=0b481e61dfd969f94d855f655305438f&furl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.ballparks.com%2fbaseball%2fnational%2febbets01.jpg
It may take us either to Florida or the minor league parks in Jersey City or more likely Newark. Each has questions as to how it fits into the story, but so did the other sites…
(Edit: I guess I shouldn’t even exclude Springfield…)
Today there are a couple minor league parks in New York City, I’ve been to the one on Staten Island, don’t know about back then.
FWIW, when Stan was in the military in 1945, his #6 was kept warm by a rookie infielder who played mostly in left field that season, kid named Schoendienst. When Stan came back in 1946, he reclaimed #6 and Red was given #2.
Also in 1946, the Cards had a rookie catcher wearing Dizzy Dean’s old #17 – kid named Garagiola. I don’t know what year #17 was retired – maybe when the movie came out?
How about this- Al Lang Field used to be called Waterfront Park and it was demo’d and rebuilt retaining some of the struccture in 1947.
http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2008/reports/springtrain/
This link shows a pictorial of Al Lang starting with Waterfront Park, guys it is worth it with some cheesecake circa 40′s-50′s in the middle of the slide show.
http://www.digitalballparks.com/SpringTraining/AlLang1.html
But I’m not convinced because the picture with Stan wearing #19 looks like road grey .
Both the Staten Island Yankees and Brooklyn Cyclones are in the New York-Penn League and as such, they generally entertain Batavia each year, so I visit the parks. Both are good, modern minor league facilities, far newer than our target. They are also in different locations than Jersey City and Newark, the two sites where we know Stan played.
Over two dozen players wore 17 after Dean and before and after Garagiola, as it was in regular rotation and not retired until 1974.
Thanks for the other ballpark views, chief. I agree they are inconclusive.
My newest theory regarding the number change. I cannot verify this and it would only explain the photo in spring training 1942, not how the photographer got to Florida.
Most sources agree that Stan was given #6 upon his arrival in St. Louis in September 1941.
In the “St. Louis Cardinals Encyclopedia”, co-written by Bob Broeg in 1998, long-time equipment manager Butch Yatkeman says he issued Stan #6 after Floyd (Pep) Young was dropped in the spring of 1942 and Stan wore #19 prior to that.
What if both are right?
Let’s assume Stan wore #6 to conclude the 1941 MLB season. Young, already an eight-year MLB vet at the time, spent the vast majority of 1941 with Columbus of the American Association, except for two games in St. Louis, where he wore number 6.
Fast forward to spring camp 1942. Musial still had just 12 games as a major leaguer. Young was certainly in camp, too. Wouldn’t it have been likely that Young reclaimed his number 6 as the 33-year-old MLB veteran, perhaps bumping the 21-year-old rookie Stan temporarily to number 19 that spring? Then when Young was sent back to Columbus for the 1942 regular season, Stan was re-issued number 6.
It could explain how Stan was number 6 in 1941 and again in 1942 and perhaps number 19 in the middle that spring. I guess to verify this, we would need a numerical roster from spring training 1942. I wonder what the odds are of something so obscure having survived this long.
Thoughts?
Sounds like a plausible scenario, I think Greene could have easily been sent to Florida by his paper for spring training, the caption by Greenes name and by the publication just denotes that both were based in New York.
Since Stan was known to have played in Newark and Jersey City I looked up the venues he would have played in.
Roosevelt Stadium, Jersey City, Home of Jersey Giants, International League affiliate of NY Giants. This is where Jackie Robinson made his pro debut for the Montreal Royals on 4-18-46. (Grateful Dead played here in 1973)
http://www.jerseycityonline.com/rstadium/roosebw.jpg
http://www.jerseycityonline.com/rstadium/32rs.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File%3ARoosevelt_stadium.JPG?powerset
http://www.jerseycityonline.com/roosevelt_stadium/roosevelt_08_01_73_mr_bassman.jpg
http://www.jerseycityonline.com/roosevelt_stadium/t730731.jpg
Ruppert Stadium, Newark, Home of Newark Bears, International League affiliate of NY Yankees in early 40′s
http://www.oldnewark.com/sports/images/buildings/ruppert/openinggameeasternleague.jpg
http://www.oldnewark.com/imagepages/sports/ruppert.htm
Thanks, bb. It is hard to tell as much about Newark and one of the photos looks much older, but neither seem to have the same construction as the park in the Stan photo. Would you agree?
Again, The photo indicates that Greene took it for The Baseball Magazine not the NY- telegraph. They probably sent him. It is rare (though possible) a photo taken in Sept of 1941 would be copyrighted in 1942. It is most surely a 1942 photo.
Do you know if the photo was ever published?
Another way of backing into the number would be to verify if and when in 1941/1942 any other Cardinal was assigned #19.
Excellent point, CC. According to the information I have, in 1941 Ernie Koy and Erv Dusak wore #19. The next season, Mort Cooper and Harry Gumbert wore it.
As an aside, I recall reading somewhere that Cooper got into a superstition thing where he moved up one number as he collected each win from something like 14 to 22. That was in 1942.
Anyway, Dusak was one of the group of players called up for his MLB debut along with Stan in September of 1941. It seems most likely that Dusak was assigned #19 and wore it at the same time as Stan wore #6 in their late-season 1941 debuts.
Dusak moved to #17 in 1942.
Also, Mark Stang has contacted the Library of Congress in an attempt to locate the original photo from the World-Telegram files. This may take some time, but could provide the ultimate answer to the photographer/location part of the puzzle if it can be found.
Brian, I already checked the Library of Congress World Telegram files (they are on-line). There appear to be no photos of Musial in the early days of his career.
But again, why focus on the NYWT when the photo clearly states is was from The Baseball Magazine Company?
Again, I recommend (as mentioned in post # 4) contacting the Joyce Sports Research center at the University of Notre Dame as they have all of the Baseball Magazine back issues.
Brian, the one photo is opening day 1910, I meant to note that, sorry. I would say they are not similar to the Stan photo but am looking for better pictures, when I get time.
Not discounting CC’s point that the phtographer worked for the mag and might have covered non-NY teams and venues. Good point.
But staying on the NY track for now, I belive the Brooklyn Dodgers held 1941 and 1942 spring training in Havana. If so, could the Cards have gone there for some games?
There seem to be two suitable venues, used at the time for games between Cuban League teams and visiting MLB teams, La Tropical and Almendares Park. Both known for extaordinarily large dimensions.
In this article, the first two images are Almendares Park back then, the third image is La Tropical before it was modernized. If the Cards might have played some ST games there in 1942 I will look for better pictures.
http://www.habanaradio.cu/singlefile/?secc=19&subsecc=19&id_art=20071101011244
Also, on another tack, I am looking into the Cards late September road games, after Stan joined the team. I will look at Forbes field first, but I’m pretty sure it had steel and concrete stands. The Stan photo seems to be wooden. If you have a better image could you confirm that?
CC, based on his 1998 purchase of 600 images from The Baseball Magazine archives, Stang thinks they did not have their own photographers.
The original photo of the photo that started this came from The Baseball Magazine supplement that is in the possession of Mike Oasheim. It is unclear to me what more we would learn from that. Isn’t what is important to try to find the original photo, not all the places where it later ran?
I will pass on the Library of Congress info to Stang. I wish I could get him to post here rather than be the intermediary, but he is trying to leave on vacation…
Interesting question about Havana, bb. I have a spring training 1940 postcard photo of the Cards in Cuba, so they did go at least once in that era. Can’t really tell about the background ballpark other than the grandstand pillars may be set back a bit. I will try to do some more digging later today…
The only other image I have of the Musial #19 photo in question is from the St. Louis Cardinals Encyclopedia. It is smaller and cropped and therefore, less useful than the one above.
It is not unusual, even today, for a publication to pay a photographer from another publication to “string” a photo for a feature story, so it is entirely possible for Greene to have been at spring training on the World Telegram’s dime and to have taken a photo for the Baseball Magazine.
Brian, on the Broeg conundrum: I consulted a third Broeg source, his memoir, for a possible tie-break, but there’s no mention of Musial and his number. Broeg was working for the AP in Boston in Sept. 1941 and would have had no first-hand knowledge. The photo you posted from spring training ’42 is in Musial’s book; the No. 19 photo, obviously, is not.
Stang believes The Baseball Magazine later bought photos from a variety of sources. Here is his comment from an email today:
Also, from his 1941 scorecards, Stang confirmed Dusak wore #19 at the end of that season, further seeming to confirm that Stan was not given #19 when he first came up.
By the way, I keep meaning to thank everyone for joining in the search. I hope you are enjoying this as much as I am.
Aside: While surfing the net I accidentally came upon a non-baseball photo I haven’t seen in a while. It beats Chiefs Al Lange bathing beauties. Comedic relief.
http://www.astonisher.com/sticker/palin_see.html
The only road serieses in 1941 after Stan joined were to Forbes and Wrigley. It is not either of those in the Stan photo.
Forbes:
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/forbes903.jpg
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/forbesinf.jpg
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/forbes2.jpg
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/forbes1.jpg
Wrigley:
It’s not Wrigley.
Yes, I think we are pretty safe now in asserting that Stan did not wear #19 with the St. Louis Cardinals during the 1941 regular season unless he borrowed Dusak’s uniform. The St. Louis Cardinals Encyclopedia is the one source that disagrees.
The Brooklyn Dodgers held 1942 spring training in Havana at El Gran stadium. Estadio del Cerro.
http://www.life.com/image/51179063/in-gallery/23149/dem-bums-classic-brooklyn-dodgers
http://www.life.com/image/51177705/in-gallery/23149/dem-bums-classic-brooklyn-dodgers
Present stadium: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_Habana_-_Estadio_Latinoamericano.jpg
According the site Cubanball.com, it doesn’t look like the Dodgers had many spring visitors.
The site also notes the 1940 Cards went 3-1 apparently against local Cuban teams between 3/21-3/31 (see photo in comment #57). Mize and Slaughter are said to have been on the trip. Cuban Mike Gonzalez was a Cardinals coach.
Make that Brooklyn
I fixed the quote, but I snipped it from the site directly.
In 1942 the cards didn’t play anywhere but Sportsman’s, Forbes and Wrigley until May 8. Then played the Reds at Closley. The photo is definately not Crosley. So it seems any notion that it could have been at the very start of 1942 regular season is out.
The uniform is St. Louis not minor league, as I understand it, so it has to be spring training 1942. Or am I messed up somehow?
It seems they didn’t play the Dodgers in Havana.
Chief’s photo of Al Lange looks promising.
Its good to see all this collaborative problem solving at work.
Not that it is relevant to the photo research, but some African American stars played in the Dominican in the late 1930s. Folks like Satchel Paige, Cool Papa Bell, etc. They may have helped elevate interest in the game among Dominicans.
Here is a question: the number on Musial’s uniform is not crystal clear. This is just a publicity photo. So could Musial have borrowed another guy’s clean jersey for the purpose of taking of a publicity still? His uniform number would have been unimportant.
If it becomes possible to identify the Park, this seems important for helping establish the time when the photo might have been taken. The time, via location, may help interpret the photo.
Musial is young, in this photo. His baseball future was then unwritten. He would have been another rookie and many never enjoy the skill and good fortune to have long careers. So maybe he was given one uniform one day, but it changed a day later, for some trivial reason.
Perhaps you should give Tom Hanks a call?
Ok, this is a big-time cop out, but what if Musial just threw on any old shirt for a photo pre-game one day – maybe his usual #6 was being repaired or coming back from the cleaners – and he never actually wore #19 in game action?
Seems the only real chance at an accurate answer would be from The Man himself, no?
PHE, I do not see Stan as the only answer, though it is one avenue I have pursued. I have emailed back and forth with his personal rep multiple times this week, but I still have no way of knowing whether Stan will be told of this. As everyone knows, he is quite advanced in age.
As we have also apparently seen with what Yatkeman told Vickery/Broeg, memories can play tricks. So far, we have nothing other than that recollection as captured in The St. Louis Cardinals Encyclopedia that puts number 19 on Stan’s back on his arrival in 1941 and on the other side of the ledger, multiple pieces of evidence that Dusak, first called up with Stan, wore it instead.
Finding the original photo, if it exists, may have additional markings about when and where it was taken. That will take more time to play out, compounded by Mark Stang’s impending vacation.
If Musial was assigned number 19 in spring training 1942 as I currently suspect, there will be more documented proof of it than just one photo. Earlier this evening, I came up with another idea and put that ball in motion. I hope to have an answer about it tomorrow, though if it turns out to be definitive, maybe it would be more appropriate for SABR day on Saturday.
In 1942 the Cards and Yankees shared spring training at Waterfront Park in St. Petersburg. It is described as ‘Wooden’. Each team also had its own ‘practice field’, and I take it they mainly used the stadium at Waterfront Park for the games. The original Al Lang is described as steel and concrete and opened in 1947, and was modernized in the 70′s.
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_in_the_Tampa_Bay_area
Al Lange as it was from 1947 until the 70′s
http://www.digitalballparks.com/SpringTraining/AlLang2.html
http://www.digitalballparks.com/SpringTraining/AlLang3.html
Can’t find any photos of the ‘wooden’ grandstand at Waterfront Park.
Here is a nice slide show of Al Lang including a shot of Stan there in 1960, according to the caption. The slide show does not show the ‘wooden’ stadium prior to 1947.
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/webspecials07/photo_galleries/al-lang-tour/index.shtml
bb, I am looking at the photos in the link Al Lang 2 you provided. Check out the one with the bathing beauties again, but instead of looking at the girls, focus on the background. That looks like it might be the old wooden park. Note the support pillars on the front edge and the short wall beneath them along with the dark background behind. It is not definitive, but it might be the same background as in the Stan #19 photo. (Whoever did the captions is confused about the locations of first and third base!)
Edit: Though looking again at the Stan photo, it looks like there may be a covered dugout on the left….
There are covered dugouts in several of the photos on the slide show.
I wonder if those bathing suits would be pre-1947. Also there are light poles in all the shots except the one showing the Inn and the postcard.
Brian, the slide show that includes the shot of stan at Al Lang in 1969 also has an aerial shot dated 1962 which looks the same as the one in the other slide show.
I think we need something that is definatly before 1947.
That’s 1960 not 1969
Both the photo links in comment 45 show Waterfront Park-but not the correct angle in the first one of Stan batting.
The first two photos or so in the second link(slide show) show Waterfront from an elevated distance, and after the bathing beauties (which beat the heck out of your link Bling to Palin in a bikini (;>) ,
there are a couple good ones that show Al Lange in the late 40′s, including one near the end that looks like it could be a dead ringer from a distance .
Waterfront wasn’t completely demo’d in 1947 and I’m sure the roof structure with wooden posts was kept but they may have added a few more seats in front.
In a quick search of other spring training ballparks in Florida that the Cardinals may have traveled to during that era, nothing looks as likely as Waterfront Park.
So my working theory is this photo was taken in Spring Training 1941 (unless there is no way Musial would have been there in ’41) and he was told “Here Busher, you get #19 in a road uni.”
Then after he made the good impression by the end of the ’41season , he earned the right to keep #6 at 1942 Spring Training.
I’m guessing the photographer took thousands of photos of ballplayers every spring and when the editor asked in early 1942 “Hay Bill, got any photos of that young phenom Musial” Mr. Greene was able to pull that photo out of his hat.
Yeah, that sounds pretty far fetched.
http://www.digitalballparks.com/SpringTraining/AlLang11.html
even tho this photo is probably taken in 1962 , Al Lange Field still retained many of the features
of the original Waterfront Park,
I’m putting my chips on Waterfront Park 1941 or 1942 .
http://www.digitalballparks.com/SpringTraining/AlLang13.html
this one is even more convincing as being a strong possibility.
Make that 1941 at Waterfront because the 1942 photo from the St.Pete Times shows the pillars and dugouts painted white.
I have major questions about spring 1941. At that point, Musial was coming off his third season as a D level pitcher who had begun to play the outfield as well. He had hurt his arm playing there in the summer of 1940 and had apparently made his commitment to switch to the outfield because his arm did not get better over the winter. Remember that he was a D level player with a total of 14 A, B, and C-level affiliates full of players above him in the pecking order to consider. And who would do a photo shot of this still very obscure minor leaguer who to date had primarily been a pitcher swinging the bat?
Having said that, I found a reference to Musial being brought in to pitch (against his better judgment) to face the Cardinals major leaguers in two spring 1941 intersquad games. In the words of Joseph Stanton in “Stan Musial: A Biography”, “Clay Hopper, who was his manager for a few spring outings, needed a left-handed pitcher to use in relief to shore up a minor league squad that was in the midst of a pounding by the major league Cardinals.” (In 1941, Hopper was manager of the B level Sally League club, one of the teams that passed on taking Musial at the end of 1941 spring training.)
Stan gave up a couple of “mammoth” home runs to Terry Moore and Johnny Mize. He yielded seven runs in his second outing and that was it. This cemented the decision he had already tried to make to become a full-time outfielder. So he at least pitched against the major leaguers twice in spring 1941, perhaps for a B level team.
By spring training 1941, it sounds like Musial was auditioning in two capacities, pitcher and OF. Maybe publicity stills were taken in each role? Maybe photographers took a photo of every young player. Or, did photographers limit their cameras to just the highest profile prospects?
Dunno, JS, but it would seem expensive and time-consuming to take individual photos of all 26 minor league teams worth of players. That would seem to be 500-600 players at least. In 1940, Stan was on one of the bottom 12 clubs of the 26, D level.
In the above referenced bio, there are references to Stan being worried he was going to be released in the spring of 1941 because of his pitching struggles and being unproven as an outfielder. With that many players around, competition was strong and the organization had the reputation for being impatient. I can see why Stan would have been concerned, unable to move above D level in three years of pitching.
The Cardinal Encyclopedia explanation that Musial wore 19 in September 1941 sounds like a rational explanation for the photo used in the book, but this may have been an intrepretative guess.
JS, yes it is a rational explanation to try to explain the unusual photo. But we have proof from September 1941 scorecards that Stan wore #6 and Erv Dusak, called up the same day as Stan, wore #19 at the end of the 1941 season. In addition, Stan’s own words from his 1964 bio quoted above conflict with the 1998 Encyclopedia’s account. In fact, there is no other source we have unearthed that suggests Stan ever wore #19 in a regular season MLB game with many indicating he did not. (See above posts.)
Maybe it is a photo from spring training 1942. Musial is by then an OF on the verge of making the team.
The copyright date is 1942, so this could fit.
The problem is the number may not conform to what he wore in games, but it was just a publicity still. The number is not clearly displayed, suggestive the number was unimportant and possibly consistent with the importance of wearing a handy clean uniform for a photographer.
Do I believe this? Not necessarily.
I think it was photoshopped just to make everyone chase their tales!
An excellent choice of words. We may be chasing tales and tails…
(I admit that at one point I stood up and assumed my LH batting stance and swing to reproduce the photo angle in my own mind to ensure the batter was swinging lefty.)
Found Waterfront Park in its ‘wooden’ days
Comment I found with the photo: “Yankees at Waterfront Park in St. Petersburg, Florida (Circa 1927)
Babe Ruth looking directly at the camera on top of the West Coast Inn, a hotel he famously hit with one of the very longest balls ever launched.”
http://baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=38707&d=1207023605
Some other fun stuff including Stan in 1941 Cards team photo and Dizzy Dean as a Cub. Some are panoramas so be sure to scroll right to see it all..
1941 Cardinals team photo, taken Sept., 20, 1941, Stan is in middle row on left
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1654517&postcount=603
1899 St. Louis Perfectos with Cy Young
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1253023&postcount=244
1886 St. Louis Maroons
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1257909&postcount=265
Dizzy Dean as a Cub, he’s on the left
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1401429&postcount=402
Sportsman’s Park during 1926 WS vs. Yankees
http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=75607&page=2
Brian,
If I had to guess, I think your last supposition is the most likely: that it was just a transitory moment in spring training 1942, so fleeting that Musial wouldn’t think twice about saying that 6 was the only number he ever wore in the majors.
The spring ’41 guess is unlikely for all the reasons you state, in addition to which even if a photographer were going to take shots of every player down to the organization’s lowest levels, that photographer would not be from a New York newspaper.
Separately, here’s some more information on those Musial pitching games in spring ’41, from Musial/Broeg: The game in which Moore and Mize hit home runs off of him was played in Columbus, Ga., where the Cardinals had a minor league camp, as the Cardinals were barnstorming north from spring training. He had been told in advance that he was on the pitching roster for the game, although not the starter (that is, Clay Hopper didn’t send Musial out on the spur of the moment). The game a few days later in which he had the horrendous inning was against the Phillies, not the Cardinals.
Couple of thoughts on the 1927 Waterfront Park photo.
The cars confirm the date, its obviously well before Al Lange was built in 1947.
It is obviously the same site and same park.
There are light poles, painted white,
There looks like a covered dugout on the third base line.
If Bling is right that the setting is the park in St Petersberg, it can be spring training 1942. A NY team is visiting and a NY photographer is there. Musial is by then an OF. This would seem to fit.
If true, then the only question is why he was wearing #19.
The Yankees were not just visiting St. Pete in spring 1942. Their games were played in the same park as the Cardinals, as bb links to in comment #73. Musial was already well-known enough in spring 1942 due to his late-season success in 1941 to perhaps catch the eye of the NY and national media.
Jumbo, if you check out comment #47, you will see a theory as to why Musial could have been wearing #19 in the spring of 1942. It has not yet been confirmed, but I have a good lead.
s.f., thanks for sharing the additional spring 1941 information. Very interesting.
Getting to the really obscure stuff now. Here are some early 40′s stan photos with same bird cap. Scroll down past the stats to the first set of three pictures. Especially look at the middle one. Looks like the same park as our Stan #19 photo.
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=942880&postcount=3
Babe Ruth photos I guarantee you have never seen.
http://baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35648&d=1202877675
http://baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35649&d=1202877694
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1115470&postcount=24
Check out the glove he’s wearing in the 1918 Red Sox photo
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1246180&postcount=5
Babe hitting homer in 1926 WS at Sportsman’s Park, also another Red Sox photo
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1246192&postcount=7
1915 WS Red Sox pitching staff featuring Ruth
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1251636&postcount=24
Dusak only played a few games in 1942; maybe he was an early spring training cut? If he and Musial came up together the prior September, they may have been friends.
bb, the Ruth stuff is obscure but as you said, the one Stan photo is important as it shows more of the ballpark’s grandstand. I agree with you that it is the same park as the #19 photo with more of the pillars and roof visible. Note the same sort of tiled background (a screen perhaps?), covered dugout and benches. The site from where the photo came labels it as 1943, but I doubt that since Stan is wearing the 1941 cap that he also wore in 1942 spring camp.
Now, can we find a photo of Waterfront Park/Al Lang I that we can use to compare and validate the location of this photo? The 1927 Waterfront Park photo shows Y-shaped pillar supports, but it is from so far away, I cannot make a positive id. In fact, the Y’s look wider in the earlier shot, but there are 15 years between the two pictures.
Here it is. Extracted for everyone’s viewing pleasure…
And here is a crop of the Waterfront Park photo from 1927.
The 1927 photo shows the park with no press box, and seems to show Y shaped roof columns. It seems like the pressbox was probably added during the 1947 rebuild, and the newer roof columns without the Y that appear in some of the photos. Also, in the photo to the right of the one you extracted, that white building looks like that white inn thats across the street.
BINGO, from the official site of the City of St. Petersburg
http://www.stpete.org/HR_Photos/0232.jpg
blingboy, you are my hero! Is there anyone out there who is not yet convinced that the #19 photo of Stan was taken at Waterfront Park in St. Petersburg? Here is the photo from bb’s link just above.
To my tired eyes, it looks like there is a bench in front of the screen. Is that where players sat or ballboys? Are there dugouts elsewhere?
I like the wonderful cars in the 1927 photo, with a rainbow above.
Also its nice to see a slender umpire in the photo just above.
Often in spring training even today, coaches sit on chairs or benches on the dirt in foul territory with no protection, between the dugout and the home plate area, against the screen of course. TLR and DD still do it, for example, and are sometimes joined by players.
In these St. Pete photos, there appear to be small roofed dugouts further down the baselines. It may be most visible on the left in the Stan batting stance photo in comment #97. He looks to be standing past first base in short right field in that photo. In fact, his position on the field seems very similar to the #19 photo, perhaps with the (different?) photographer(s) positioned at slightly different angles.
Thanks BB……………………ya think the Babe wound up a little on his swing……….krikey. No wonder he hit some many. You think he could hit todays pitching doing that? He was a big pull hitter, so that makes it that much harder to imagine…………………………. If I’m sitting 3 and 1……… why not take a nice leg whipping hip turn, hands looping and traveling an extra 2ft………….hell yes. Send this to MM to use with Brendan Ryan……… he almost does that anyway when he gets a cheap cut.
Nice research blingboy,
now if we could identify the man walking behind Stan it might help identify the year.
I haven’t followed this discussion that closely about the ball parks — so di Waterford park turn into Al Lang field? If not they are eerily similar in layout (particularly down the RF line).
CC, yes.
Here are a couple links to other photos showing Waterfront Park pre-1947, thought I might as well post them, there are other photos with them but its easy to pick out.
Ted Williams
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1294755&postcount=3
Dated 3/7/40, Dom DiMaggio, Jimmy Fox, Ted Williams
http://baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=1586405&postcount=5
Couple last things to pass along.
The St. Petersburg Times has an on-line archive going back to 1901. You can do a keyword search. From late Feb. thru early April most issues have a lot of spring training info, including box scores, going way back. If you scroll around you will find the sports stories in the issue you are looking at. Some info on teams training elsewhere, especially Tampa, clearwater, plant city. Lots of obscure info. Photos are poor quality.
Rundown on history of ballpark.
Prior to 1922: The Browns and Phillies sometimes trained at ‘Sunshine Park’ on first street.
1922-1947: 1922 Waterside Park Ballfield and grandstand built. Many teams trained there over the years, primarily the Cards and Yankees. By the late 30′s it was dilapidated and there was a lot of trouble getting the City to buck up for improvements.
1947-1970′s: Improvement made, including replacing wooden grandstand which was a ‘fire hazard’, and adding a press box above first base line. The location was not changed and the new facility was called Al Lang Field.
In the 70′s it was torn down and a new facility was built a block away.
Thanks for the info on Waterfront Park, blingboy.
I fooled around last night and isolated the man in uniform with the bat and enlarged it and almost convinced myself that it is Joe Medwick, but he was traded early in 1940 and I’m not willing to go out on the limb that far. I still think the photo could have been taken at spring training in 1941.
No luck at all with isolating the man leaning against the post in the grandstand but I would bet if someone could clarify him that his face would have character and be identifiable.
By the way, I haven’t had any luck embedding photos directly into my comments, I would like to post the photo of Medwick that made me think it could be “Muscles” with the bat behind Stan.
As bb discovered, The St. Petersburg Times has an online archive back to 1901. It also includes other local papers. Here are some facts I learned.
The Cardinals began arriving in St. Pete on February 20, 1942 and stayed in the Bainbridge Hotel. Twice a day workouts were scheduled at Waterfront park (the “p” was never capitalized) at 9:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The Yankees worked out at Huggins field (also no cap), not at Waterfront. The first game between the two was on March 6 at Waterfront.
As the Cardinals broke camp in 1942, here are a couple of tidbits from The Evening Independent of April 6, 1942. The headline:
Here is the best part yet – a montage photo from that article. Note Mr. Musial in his #19 – the very same pose in our mystery photo, likely cropped out in a 1942 version of Photoshop!
What this establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt is that our #19 photo was taken sometime prior to April 6, 1942. We had previously determined the setting is Waterfront park. So we are getting closer and closer…
chief, if you can email me your photo, I will load it. To my untrained eye, the guy in the background looks more like a coach hitting fungoes to me. I don’t see how we could id him let alone the leaning guy. The photo just isn’t clear enough.
We cannot rule it out yet, but why do you think the photo is from 1941 instead of 1942?
Hope you can post the photo Chief. I know nothing about photoshop or any of that so can’t play with the pictures myself. I had myself convinced that the ‘umpire’ looked like Billy Southworth.
Also, there are countless stories about 41 and 42 spring training in the St. Pete Times, some with pictures, maybe somebody who knew what they were doing could find something. I don’t know.
One other thought, this was war time so maybe old uniforms were kept for spring training use. That one photo was captioned 1943 but Stan was wearing the 41 style cap (I think that was Brian’s comment).
Brian, I see you are fooling around with the pictures. I can’t make out most of them. I did discover the there are some stories about the Yankess that have a picture showing them playing the Cards, but which don’t mention the Cards so a keyword search will miss them.
Excellent find above. It would be between February 20 and April 6, 1942 then, if I’m following.
bb, yes I think it is most likely between those dates, but at least one of us, chief, thinks it could be in spring 1941 instead. We don’t have anything yet that can rule that out 100%, but I am interested in chief’s thinking. Between s.f. and I, I thought we had spring 1941 down to very low odds. I still hope to have something to better answer that, but it looks like it will not be until next week.
In the same archives, I found a Bob Broeg story from 1967 in which Stan is reminiscing about his spring debut in St. Pete in 1942. It is clearly called his “first big league training”. The boxscore calls it his “training game debut”. (Stan batted third, going 3-for-4 with a single, two-run double and an inside-the-park home run in an 8-7 eight-inning loss to the Yanks. He would only get 13 more hits in his remaining 77 ABs that spring. Oddly, the article didn’t say the date, but it was likely March 6, 1942 based on the other article above.)
In addition, the article states that in 1941, Musial was assigned to one of the Cardinals minor league camps in Columbus, GA, a location s.f. also noted before. It tells the story of Stan giving up the pair of home runs to Terry Moore and Johnny Mize of the major league Cardinals, passing through as they barnstormed their way north for the regular season.
The article includes a photo of Stan’s first spring training at-bat in 1942, a popup single, but the background was edited out. The story indicates it was at Waterfront Park. There is a separate aerial shot of the Park, but it is too muddy to make out any detail.
Even if 1941 Cardinals minor leaguers wore uniforms similar to the major leaguers and Stan was assigned #19 as a minor leaguer that spring, it seems most improbable for the New York photographer who supposedly did not work outside of the City itself to have been in a Cardinals minor league camp in Georgia in spring 1941 to shoot a then-unknown D level player swinging a bat – a kid who had predominantly been a pitcher up until that point. Further, unless the Columbus, GA ballpark looks strikingly similar to Waterfront park, which seems even more unlikely, I think we can just about eliminate 1941 from consideration.
Comments?
Solid research Brian and blingboy, With the latest montage and stories you tracked down I agree it had to be spring training 1942 at Waterfront Park.
First of all my thinking on the 1941 possibility depended on Stan being there! Also I was skeptical
that Stan had #19 as late as spring 1942. I thought he was more established at that point. He only got into 12 games in 1941.
I agree with it being wartime they would try to save on uniforms as much as possible.
Brian, the image of Stan in the montage is not the same as our Stan #19 photo.
The two most obvious differences are:
1. where the bat disappears behind him. In the montage it is right at his collar, in our Stan photo it is clearly above the collar.
2. The sock on his right foot has three stripes showing in the montage and two in ours.
Some lesser things, the hat brim is flatter looking in one and curved in the other, and his feet look different.
“Upon further review…”
You are right. In my excitement, I did not put the two photos side by side until now.
However, they are the same man, with the same swing in the same uniform with the same number, but taken from a slightly different angle. The original #19 almost seems to have been taken from above a bit, as I think that is why less of his sock is showing, for example. The new #19 is more from the side.
Even though the pictures aren’t the same, my base conclusion is. Stan wore #19 before April 6. 1942 and did it at Waterfront Park in St. Pete.
Though Mark Stang might disagree, I am far more interested in determining when Stan wore #19 than in precisely dating the picture, rather than the other way around. Of course, the two are very much related, but there may be other ways of proving when he wore #19.
I also want to know what happened to #6 if in fact Stan went from #6 to #19 and back to #6. I have a theory, but need proof. For example, Stang is one of many collectors of old scorecards. I am still working a lead in this area.
Maybe when Mark returns from vacation, we will learn if the Library of Congress has the original photo, which will be the only surefire way to date it.
I do appreciate you keeping me honest…
Two comments
Although the two photos may have been taken at the same session, they may not, so Stan may have worn the #19 for more than just one day.
I mentioned that both Harry Walker and Pep Young are listed in wikipedia as wearing #6 in 1941, so maybe one of them had it. If they were in camp that is.
Yes, I have suspected all along that Stan wore #19 more than one day. I don’t think Butch Yatkeman was totally wrong. He said Stan wore #19 until Young was dropped in 1942 or at least that is how Broeg/Vickery interpreted it. There are no direct quotes in the book. Still, that could be right.
Where Yatkeman was clearly wrong was in saying that Stan wore #19 when he came up in 1941. We have proven via scorecards that Stan wore #6 in 1941 and Erv Dusak wore #19 simultaneously. But there is a chance that Stan always wore #6 in regular season 1941 and 1942 (and forever more) but #19 in spring 1942 only as Dusak picked up #17 for the 1942 season.
Pep Young was most likely in 1942 camp, otherwise how could he have been dropped in 1942 as the Encyclopedia says? This I have to prove. If Young was in 1942 camp, I would expect him to have worn #6. Unproven. He was definitely assigned to Columbus for the entire 1942 regular season. Walker wore #10 in 1942 and did not play in the minors that year – only with St. Louis. Proven.
Still loose ends to tie up.
The montage almost seems like caricature rather than a photo.
I totally missed s.f.’s find in an earlier comment that Musial was training in Georgia in ’41, I apologize for the misguided stubborness.
The original photo will be a lot clearer and would probably date it exactly if it is written on the back of the photo. Or cross referenced in a file etc.
Otherwise, without it being a game photo it would be too hard to date exactly.
If you manage to get it whittled down to a certain week after studying boxscores, scorecards and St. Pete Times articles that would be pretty cool.
Likewise my theory about the player with the bat being Joe Medwick is bogus since he was gone to the Brooklyns by June 1940 .
The photo of Medwick that got my atttention is at the linkbelow , scroll down and you will arrive at Classic Cardinals, the Medwick photo is 4 rows down all the way to the right. Some interesting photos here.
http://www.sportsecyclopedia.com/nl/stlcards/cardinalsimages.html
I think the player or coach with the bat behind Stan can be identified eventually but won’t have any bearing on the exact date.
I also wondered if the montage was touched up by an artist. Notice how visible his pocket is, for example.
Please don’t apologize. We are all working this together and doing better because of it.
I had already started keeping an eye out for Young in the box scores but have only had a chance to look at a handful of early ones. He has been conspicuously missing the first few games. Will not have time to look through them the next few days, have to earn a living, sorry, maybe somebody else can.
Ha Ha, they’re wrong.
Take a look at Chief’s link just above. The row just after Medwick is Stan and the caption says ‘MLB Debut 1941′, and guess what wooden grandstand is in the background? Think we shoud tell them they have a spring training 1942 photo?
Also, look at that glove. How could he catch anything with that.
The next row down is a later photo of Stan, 1947 or later, and shows the ‘Al Lange’ pressbox above the first base line.
I hate to beat a dead donut but this article says Stan was in St. Pete in 1941
http://www.tampabay.com/google_archive/search.php
Unlikely his photo would have been taken before being shipped to Columbus Georgia and then Springfield.
The caption box in the montage is interesting. It says Stan outhit 3 batting champions. When? with his .200 BA in Spring Training? In his 12 games in 1941? Thoughts?
chief, it is not a dead anything, but you will need to provide the actual link to the article. The link you posted is just to the main search page. When you find the article again, over at the right of the page, there is a chain link logo with the words “Link to article”. You will need to click on that and get the actual code to the page in question. Just paste that here and I can fix the link if it does not display properly.
I am very interested as I searched quite a bit there and could not find any reference in the 1941 papers to Musial appearing in 1941 spring games or even being in major league camp that spring. That doesn’t mean it is not there, though…
CC, the caption box is referring to Stan’s stellar 1941 season and his three stops – Springfield, Rochester and StL. He did not have enough ABs at any of them to qualify for the batting title, but would have won each had he sustained his pace while there long enough.
Stan hit .426 in StL. Pete Reiser of the Dodgers was the NL leader at .343.
He batted .326 in Rochester. Gene Corbett of Baltimore/Newark won the International League title at .306.
Musial hit .379 in Springfield. The Western Association crown was captured by Ed Yarmul of Hutchinson at .356.
This is what caused him to receive so much attention coming into 1942. It certainly wasn’t his D level pitching through 1940.
My initial impression was the image within the newspaper “montage” was an artist’s rendering using the publicity photo, rather than a second and separate photo.
Here is an article from Monday 2/24/41, says 20 battery-men , an infielder and an outfielder reported, with the rest of the squad to report ‘Thursday’. (which would be 2/27/41). It names the players and the non-battery-men were John Hopp and Terry Moore. We need to look at the intervening days also in case anyone drags in before Thursday.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oKoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L1UDAAAAIBAJ&dq=1941%20cardinals%20roster&pg=3931%2C6050763
The above article also has a pictue of a young ‘Butch Yatekman’. Never saw a picture of him in his younger days before.
Also, the above is The Independent (aka Evening Independent) p. 17, not the Times.
2/25/41, two arrived in camp, John Pintar and James Brown. Article updates the total to 24.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oaoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=L1UDAAAAIBAJ&dq=1941%20cardinals%20roster&pg=6110%2C6231086
This is an interesting article talking about what I think are non-roster prospects in camp, and says they where ‘white’ uniforms, and there are four so far. (pitchers and catchers at this point). Southworth says the people in camp so far are ‘tried’ with only one ‘class B’ guy. (not Stan). St. Pete Times 2/25/41
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=a7oKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Q00DAAAAIBAJ&dq=1941%20cardinals%20roster&pg=6999%2C199501
Good point Jumbo. I wonder how common that was in that era.
bb, would Stan have been listed as a pitcher if he was invited to 1941 major league camp? If so, he was not among the 20+ pitchers and catchers. I think that is your point, correct?
From the Stanton Musial bio on page 18:
The passage also mentions pitcher Jack Creel as Stan’s roommate that spring.
It footnotes Shotten’s quote to the 1964 Musial/Broeg bio on page 37-38.
What does this imply/say?
1) Musial came to some camp in 1941 as a pitcher.
2) The first camp he was in during spring 1941 was where minor league manager Shotton would see him regularly. (Shotton managed AA Columbus in 1941.) That would not likely be in St. Pete.
3) In the second camp, Musial focused on learning outfield. (Was it in the same location as the first camp?)
4) It is implied Creel was his roommate throughout. (There is a reference to Stan being angry at Creel for striking him out in a camp game after his move to OF.)
Other related factoids:
5) Creel was Stan’s 1940 teammate at Daytona in the D level Florida State League, like him a pitcher. Both pitchers spent the entire 1940 season together at Daytona.
6) Creel was a minor leaguer at the B and AA level later – during the 1941 regular season.
7) Neither Creel nor Musial is listed among the pitchers and catchers invited to 1941 big league camp that bb has found.
I am still finding it very hard to place Musial in St. Pete in major league camp in 1941.
FWIW, infielder Brown made the team, but Pintar never appeared in the majors. He pitched at the A1 level in both 1940 and 1941, so had reached a higher level previously than Musial and Creel. Same with the “B” level pitcher mentioned in the article, Matthew Surkont. He pitched in B level in 1940 and ended up in AA in 1941 after not making the major league team.
Why would the Cardinals have 1940 “D” level pitchers like Creel and Stan in 1941 major league camp?
The headline is Musial Delayed Debut
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aKAvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9FYDAAAAIBAJ&dq=Musial%20Waterfront%20Park&pg=7186%2C3268023
This is the article from the Evening Independent, it mentions that Musial was first at Waterfront Park in 1941 but the way I read it is that he would have been there only a few days if that before being shipped to camp in Columbus, Georgia.
I agree it is unlikely he would have had his picture taken by W.C. Greene at that time in 1941.
Basically the article talks about how the St. Petersburg fans had to wait until 1946 to view Musial in Spring Training as a full fledged star, he did have Spring Training there in 1942 as a rookie and then from ’43-’44 the Cards trained in Cape Girardeau and Stan was in the Armed Service in ’45 .
Hope I got the link right-thanks Brian.
The article was actually written in 1963 and is remembering spring training and Musial in the ’40′s.
chief, that 1963 article does place Stan in St. Pete in 1941. Not any supporting info to take from it though.
(the link worked perfectly)
Yeah , it’s kind of a throwaway line about The Man being there in 1941, could be legend or the reporter’s wishful thinking or could be true with no backup details. To me it sounded like Musial could have been there long enough to be reassigned to minor league camp.
blingboy’s link above in comment 134 from the St. Pete Times 2/25/41 has an interesting line just before the jump
“After a breakfast that included three of those energy producing vitamin pills, the Cards worked for nearly three hours yesterday”
hmmmm-wonder what those vitamin pills were concocted from? Must have been all herbal and natural. Coca leaf extract maybe? ( ; > )
From James Giglio’s 2001 book “Musial: From Stash to Stan the Man”:
The “funny glove” photo with the Waterfront Park background is pictured on page 102, labeled as Stan’s 1942 rookie season and is credited to the Hall of Fame Library in Cooperstown. That seems definitive. The website linked to in comment 121 has obviously mislabeled the photo as 1941.
On page 101, there is a photo of Stan as a Springfield Cardinal in 1941. The uniform looks to be a white version with Cardinals and the birds on the bat, just like the StL unis. I can’t make out the cap insignia, but it looks like it could be the bird.
The Cardinals had three minor league camps in 1941.
Class D rookie and second year players trained in Albany, Georgia
Class B and C camp was in Columbus, GA
Class AA and A players trained in Hollywood, Florida
On page 39, the book says Musial’s contract was purchased by Columbus AA before 1941 spring training. The reason stated for this big jump was sort of like Rule 5 today. “According to the existing rules, if Musial had not been promoted, he could have been drafted from the Cardinal farm system by another major league team.”
To start spring 1941, Musial was assigned to Hollywood where the AA teams trained, which is where the Shotton exchange occurred. (Note that Hollywood and St. Pete are 200 miles apart as the crow flies, on opposite Florida coasts.) To start his move to outfield full-time, the Cards then mistakenly sent him to D camp in Albany before ordering him to Columbus. So technically, he was in all three minor league camps in spring 1941, though he may not have played in Albany. Not clear.
Creel is mentioned as his roommate again as was the strikeout incident and the major league club’s barnstorming visit to Columbus, Musial’s third stop. Musial “became one of several ballplayers awaiting assignment or possible release… Musial at this point was ‘damaged goods’.” There is a lot of detail about the spring of 1941 – several pages worth, but clearly NO mention of major league camp or St. Pete.
Regarding Stan’s arrival in the majors, on page 56, the book says he arrived in StL on September 17, 1941, the same day he debuted. All it says about his number is that he wore the number six because that uniform fit him best and that he never wore any other uniform number.
Unfortunately, nothing of note is said about spring 1942 relative to this discussion other than a reaffirmation that Stan was worried about making the team and that “countless reporters expected much of the boy wonder”. Stan blamed his poor spring hitting then and later on the waving palms and blue skies. There was also a reference to a March 1942 Sporting News article which talked about Musial throwing across his body, which was the cause of his “sore arm, which hurt for the entire 1942 season. If it had not been for his late-season heroics in 1941, Musial probably would have been sent back to AA ball that spring (1942) for more seasoning.”
(As an aside, regarding the 1940 season in the FSL, the book says rosters were only 14 players, so many pitchers played in the field. When not pitching, Creel played right and Stan was in center. The minor league system was said to be about 500 players at the time.)
My current lead theory:
1) The #19 photo was taken in St. Pete’s Waterfront Park prior to April 6, 1942.
2) Musial did not appear in St. Pete’s Waterfront Park in 1941.
3) Therefore, the photo must be from spring training 1942.
4) Photographer Greene covered the Yankees at home during the regular season.
5) The Yankees shared Waterfront Park with the Cardinals for spring games in 1941 and 1942.
Still not 100 percent proven, but I am becoming more convinced…
Chief, I had a link to a good story talking about the pill popping at comment #9 on the Thread for
“The Cardinal Nation Blog top stories of 2009 #2: The repeat MVP ”
I agree the Hall of Fame Library is more reliable that that on-line baseball encyclopedia.
I’d like to find a copy of James Giglio’s 2001 book “Musial: From Stash to Stan the Man”.
Stan arrived at 1942 spring training Friday, February 27. The article rehashes his professioal career to date and does not mention any previous visit to St. Pete.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PrUKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=aU0DAAAAIBAJ&dq=Southworth%20reported&pg=5623%2C5292464
bb, the Giglio book surely filled in key details that helped define Stan’s movements during the 1941 spring camp. Those with memories of that time would be correct if they said Stan was in Florida in 1941, not distinguishing between Hollywood and St. Pete.
The book is well-documented with numerous footnotes. I see it is available from several on-line booksellers in the low-$20 range. ISBN # is 0-8262-1336-7 for hardcover and 0-8262-1735-4 in paperback.
I also noticed a reference to Springfield’s uniforms being hand-me-downs from the majors, which explains why they looked like the major league ones in the book photo. There wore white flannels for home and gray for road games.
Following up on Chief’s idea that the April 6 Stan #19 looked like a caricture. There are a lot of those pictures scattered round the various issues I looked at, many of them the collage type. I asked an old time newspaper guy about it today. He said the way it was often done was by tracing on a light table, where you put what you wanted to trace on the light table so light would shine through and you could trace. Then fill in detail, shading etc freehand. To make a collage, you would just trace different pictures on the same piece of paper. He said that is why the figures in the collages are often not the same scale.
Looking at the side by side, it seems like the collage ‘caricature’ must have been made from our original Stan #19 photo. Although they are not identical, they seem too much alike to be two entirely seperate things.
So the question is why would a newspaper that clearly had its own photographers, and takes a lot of pictures of the Cards at spring training, use someone else’s copyrighted photo to make their collage?
If you assume the caricature theory it makes for both some interesting questions but more importantly might help narrow down even further when the photo was taken.
Most likely if it was a trace of Greene’s photo, the newspaper traced it from the magazine in an issue that was already published. Did magazines come out several weeks before the beginning of the month back then as they do now? I’m going to assume no. So let’s assume that the supplement mentioned was mailed together with the April issue. What I am assuming as a supplement is that the April issue goes to bed and to the printer in early March and to have more current info for their readers they also have a supplement with more current info that is printed at the last minute (maybe on paper instead of magazine stock?) If the April issue was mailed on 24 March to arrive NLT 1 April to subscribers, the supplement probably is printed on say the 21st or 22nd of March. To make the supplement, the picture would of had to have been taken probably no later than the 17th or 18th of March in order for it to be developed, sent overnight to NY, put into the layout and sent to the printer.
I realize there are a lot of assumptions in the above but my point is that by constructing a time line based on when it appears the photo came out (and I say that on the assumption of a caricature) then one can narrow down the phot date even further — most likely between the 27th of Feb and the 18th of March. or something similar.
There is the possibility that Greene was basically freelancing and he sold the photo to the newspaper as well. This would change the timel ine as you could no longer assume the supplement was one from Spring training and came out in late March. I find it unlikley though that he would have sold the basic same photo to 2 different publications though.
the only other thought that i would add is maybe the local photographer was standing to the side of W.C.Greene and they were taking pictures together as the players stood in. That might explain the slightly different angle.
Good points CC and Chief. Not sure where to go next. Hopefully Brian’s contacts will come through. Any ideas?
Well, if we analyze the shadows properly (and know Musial’s height) we can get a time of day and if we can identify the exact spot where he is standing we can probably figure out from the angle of the shadow the exact day. Who should we call to help – CSI Miami, CSI New York, CSI Las Vegas, NCIS Washington, or NCIS Los Angelos ?
CC, you took the words right out of my mouth. Keep us posted, will you?
I decided to show both “big glove” photos. The one in the upper left is from the website linked to in comment 121. The caption and the right photo are from the Giglio book.
The left photo actually illustrates the Y pillars and background better while the book photo is not as cropped. Sure looks like Waterfront Park, eh?
Only because I have taken a liking to finding obscure baIlparks, I decided to look for a suitable baseball venue in Hollywood, Fl were the Cards might possibly have held minor league camp in 1941. And then try to find a pictue of it. Naturally this was good cause to get my 25 yr old MacAllan’s down. I made it a double.
There seems only one venue at the time, it was called Dowdy Field. The City of Hollywood official history site claims the Orioles had some sort of Spring camp there at some point. Very vague.
Here is a shot of Dowdy Field, Hollywood, FL ca. 1935, enjoy,. . . .. . hic. . .
http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/general/n031726.jpg
That might be the wrong link, here is another
http://ibistro.dos.state.fl.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi/x/x/0/5?library=PHOTO&item_type=PHOTOGRAPH&searchdata1=Dowdy%20field
bb, both links work, but the first one is a larger version of the same photo. Unless there were renovations, I would hate to see what that field looked like six or seven years later when Stan might have been there! My guess the name would have changed to “Double Dowdy Field”. Or maybe the Cardinals used fields elsewhere in town, such as at a school? (Please do NOT spend any time of this on account of my question!)
Just for completeness, here is the #19 photo from the Broeg/Vickery 1998 Encyclopedia. My issue is with the caption, not the photo itself, which is implied to have been taken in late 1941 or spring 1942. We know from many other sources, including Stang’s scorecard that Dusak wore #19 and Stan wore #6 in late 1941. The book has hundreds of photos, but none are credited.
Nothing follows that will send the search off in a new direction, but it should put the final nails in the Rochester 1941 coffin in terms of the mystery photo.
The PR director for the Rochester Red Wings, Chuck Hinkel, provided the following photo. It is from Stan Musial Day in Rochester in 1964. When I asked Chuck if Stan is wearing the 1941 Red Wings uniform or the 1964 one, his answer was “yes”.
He explained that the Red Wings wore identical uniforms for over 30 years, including during the 1940’s and 1960’s. The uniform always included the team logo on the left sleeve patch, also shown separately below. As you know, our mystery photo uniform does not have a patch – not to mention the fact that we have since identified the location to be in St. Pete.
Yet without the patch, the 1941/1964 Rochester and 1941/1942 St. Louis unis do seem to be of similar construction. Hinkel remains firm in his conviction that our mystery photo is not of a Red Wings uniform.
Next time you talk to Chuck, see if he can find out the name of the facility in Hollywood where the 1941 minor league camp was. Did you notice that raggedy looking field I found had lights in 1935.
Yes, I will see if I can find the name of the Hollywood field and I did notice one light tower.
I am a bit discouraged as one of my two primary leads did not pan out. I located a source with copies of the Cardinals 1941 and 1942 media guides. My hope was that Musial’s 1942 number would be in the Guide. Today’s media guides are prepped prior to spring training and have spring training player numbers.
Unfortunately, these 1940′s guides did not list player numbers. Musial is not in the 1941 guide at all (as we expected) but is in the 1942 guide. Just no number. Darn.
That photo Brian posted of Musial being honored in Rochester is an instant classic. The Man always seems to class up the immediate area, plus all the fat cats and poobahs behind him, not to mention the little pocahontas.
How many star big leaguers would not only say farewell to all the major league cities but also stop in at a minor league town where not even a full season had been spent ?
Too bad the ’40′s guides don’t list player numbers. I’ve noticed the few 1941-1942 box scores i’ve looked at don’t list numbers either and it may be that most scorecards don’t have player numbers listed, sometimes people list the position number instead.
Interesting line on Musial’s Baseball-Reference page,
in 1952 he pitched in a game, according to the line it is all zero’s except one game and one batter faced .
An extra-inning high scoring game?
It was the first inning September 28 1952. I’ve never heard the story behind the play by play , if anyone knows it I would like to hear it, if there is one.
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1952/B09280SLN1952.htm
here is part of the play by play below
CUBS 1ST: Brown walked; HADDIX CHANGED POSITIONS (PLAYING RF);
MUSIAL CHANGED POSITIONS (PITCHING); H. RICE CHANGED POSITIONS
(PLAYING CF); Baumholtz batted right handed; Baumholtz reached
on an error by Hemus [Brown to third]; MUSIAL CHANGED POSITIONS.
(PLAYING CF); H. RICE CHANGED POSITIONS (PLAYING RF); HADDIX
CHANGED POSITIONS (PITCHING); Serena grounded into a double play
(shortstop to second to first) [Brown scored (unearned) (no
RBI), Baumholtz out at second]; Sauer struck out; 1 R (0 ER), 0
H, 1 E, 0 LOB. Cubs 1, Cardinals 0.
Last game of the year, maybe it was for fun, Cards were out of it by then, third place 8.5 games back. Too bad Hemus made the error!!
Nice Chief. I hadn’t known Musial ever played CF either.
Wednesday’s update:
Vickery had told me the Baseball Hall of Fame Library was the source of the copy of the #19 photo used in the Broeg/Vickery Encyclopedia. I contacted the HoF, who confirm they have the photo and that it was definitely taken by Greene, but have no further information about it, including where and when it was taken. That does not preclude Stang’s search for the original, which may reside in the NY World-Telegram archives in the Library of Congress.
Regarding Stan’s pitching outing in 1952, here is what Baseball Reference has to say about it:
Baumholtz seems to have had a beef with the St. Louis scorer. Interesting that Stan pitched to his nearest rival that year. I guess it wasn’t showing him up since the batting title was sewn up. Still, quite odd…
In one of my searches, can’t recall where, maybe from one of the links one of you provided, I found this photo of Musial pitching.
Gloves sure came a long way in 10 years.
Pretty good Brian,
thanks for adding the details, must have been a stunt at the end of the season.
Looks like Stan has a peek-a-boo wind up also !
The gloves issue is interesting. Usually, innovations come from new material or new mfg techniques. I wonder if this was the case with gloves. Was a new material discovered that allowed for equal protection but with a thinner glove? I used to have some of my dad’s old gloves from back in the late 40′s. The material in them almost seemed like cotton but it could have been that they were so old that whatever was in them had just practically disintegrated.
Evolution of the baseball glove is quite the story in pictures. From barehanded to tight fitting to
klunky seemingly like blimps to todays sculpted leather.
Brian did you notice the discrepancy between retrosheets pbp account and baseball reference?
BR says it was in the 6th inning Musial pitched, retrosheet says it was the first inning.
chief, I did not notice that discrepancy. On this matter, I back Retrosheet 100 percent. It is another great example why even supposedly-reputable sources that are telling stories of the past should not be accepted at face value without additional proof. This #19 search, with its various conflicts, again reminded me of that reality.
When I look at the padding in the Glove, at the heal, thumb, and little finger, and that there are no stabilizing leather strings between any of the finger…………wow. Trying to catch everything right in the palm must have a monumental challenge. That design also suggest that the fingers, while padded, had to be protected from being isolated by a fast moving ball. Guitar players nightmare.
Just received this from the Double-A Springfield Cardinals. The implication is that Stan wore #6 while with them in 1941. I wonder if that was really the case…
For those curious, the 1941 Springfield club apparently played in White City Park II.
Stan Musial to be an Inspiration for 6th Season
The 6th season of Cardinals baseball will truly be memorable as Springfield will honor the greatest Cardinals player to ever wear the “Birds on the Bat”. Hall of Famer Stan “The Man” Musial, #6, is truly an inspiration to all Cardinals. Some of our great fans remember watching in 1941 when Stan played 87 games in Springfield. Very few players have had such a profound effect on the game and the fans as the St. Louis Cardinals’ # 6. This season is a tribute to the living legend who exemplifies the essence of the Cardinals tradition.
The Cardinals unveiled the 6th season logo today featuring Musial’s image and jersey # 6. Numerous promotions and tributes are being planned throughout the season honor the Cardinals’ great. More details will be forthcoming.
You’d never guess I looked into White City Park II earlier. The ball park was part of an amusement park with carnival rides and such.
Mark Stang tells me that the Library of Congress does not have the Musial #19 photo. I have one more line on rosters still out…
Great read, fellas. I’m presently have a jersey made by Ebbet’s Field of Stan’s 41 Red Wings jersey. I’m guessing that the #6 should be appropriate…I hope.
Steve
Welcome, ozark. The Red Wings were unable to tell me what number Stan wore in 1941, but they did confirm that their uniform he is wearing in the 1964 photo in comment #157 above did have #6 on the back.
In the background, I am still working on this story to prove 100 percent that Musial wore #19 in spring training 1942.
For example, here is one tidbit I discovered. We know that Pep Young wore #6 before Musial and appeared in just two games for St. Louis in 1941. The 1941 NL boxscores have yet to be digitized by the fine folks at Retrosheet. However, I have a scorecard from 9/13/41, just four days prior to Stan’s arrival, that confirms Young wearing #6. In an August scorecard, Young’s name is shown with an asterisk and no uniform number. I suspect that means he was on the DL.
Stan and three other players were called up to report on 9/17/41. Very likely Young was sent out, as by 9/23/41 he was not noted in the program, and of course, Musial wore #6. Undoubtedly, Stan was given Pep’s old uniform, which aligns with the general accounts of the events of the time.
I haven’t posted about this lately, but I continue to work on it in the background.
I showed the photo to Red Schoendienst in spring training and he agreed to ask Stan about it.
Stan’s secretary of 48 years plus his business manager refer to the explanation in the Broeg/Vickery encyclopedia as the “official” answer, i.e. that Stan wore #19 in 1941. I sent them my scorecard proof to the contrary and will call them this coming week. They do agree the #19 photo is from spring 1942.
While Mr. Broeg has passed away, I have spoken with Jerry Vickery a number of times and showed him my evidence. He is not defensive at all and understands the discrepancy. He has agreed to help. Yatkeman’s nephew has 40 boxes of Butch’s materials stored away. Perhaps there is a spring 1942 roster with numbers assigned somewhere in there. No clear plans to take this on, however.
Vickery has a copy of the original #19 photo which is in the possession of the Hall of Fame Library in Cooperstown. He states there is a March 1, 1942 date stamp on the back.
I have gone back and forth via email multiple times with HoF library staff, but haven’t gotten anything definitive. On my long list of to-dos is to spend a day in their research library some day.
I asked SABR members for help in identifying sites with 1942 World Telegram on microfilm. Steve Steinberg has traveled to the New York Public Library but learned that March 1, 1942 is a Sunday and there are no Sunday editions of the paper on the film. In fact, there may be no Sunday editions in 1942. Steve checked on multiple days on both sides of March 1 and found nothing. Generally, the paper did not include photos on the sports page during the week.
To wrap up for now,
Musial’s representatives agree the #19 photo is from spring 1942, but do not agree he wore #6 in 1941. I still have more to do here.
I have not yet determined when the original photo appeared or in fact if it ever appeared in the World Telegram. We know it ran in the Baseball Magazine supplement and a rendering of it appeared in the St. Pete paper on April 6, 1942.
We don’t yet know for sure why Stan went from #6-#19-#6. I have a plausible theory, but it remains unproven.
I wanted to post this up as a clarification. Steve Steinberg confirms that the Baseball Magazine supplements consisted of just the photos and further, the subject of the photos had no connection to the content of the regular issue. Therefore, going back to research old Baseball Magazine editions probably won’t yield any clues about #19, at least as related to the photo in the supplement.
[...] the help of a number of members of SABR, I continue to research my pet project from over the winter, the circumstances surrounding Stan Musial wearing the number 19 in spring [...]
blingboy (and others),
I thought you might get a kick out of seeing the construction of the grandstand of another old park, this a WPA project from 1935 in Perham, MN.
Believe it or not, I have actually been to Perham. The locals pronounce it “Perm.”
Thanks Brian. WPA parks are slowly fading into history, and not too many MLB farm teams play at them anymore. I’ve never been to Perham but The Quad Cities team plays some away games at a WPA stadium in Clinton. I have been there many times, but its been awile.
I believe that the Johnson City team must still play some games at WPA parks. The Appy league used to be full of them. There is one up the interstate from Johnson City in Virginia that used to have a Phillies affiliate the first time I was there decades ago with my grandfather. That was when the Cards were setting up shop in Johnson City and they’ve been there ever since. The Yankees were in the process of moving out, and the guy who had been a manager of the Yankee affilliate had played for a Cardinals affilliate in Illinois someplace and knew my grandpa.
Anyway, I think it is the Mariners that had a team there a few years ago when I was last there. The original grandstand still stood down the third base side, but along first was all new. Made for an odd looking park. I can’t remember the name of the town or the stadium.
Last JC Yanks manager was Gene Hassell in 1974. Looks like he was from MO, but didn’t play in StL system.
I’m getting things mixed up I guess, I was about 15. My dad says he thinks the guy I’m rembering was named Walker, and grandpa knew him from Florida not Illinois. He says the guy worked for the Cards “a while back”. What that means I don’t know, dad is 85.
I bet he is talking about Jerry Walker. Walker did manage the JC Yanks and later worked for StL under Walt Jocketty as an exec. Earlier, he pitched one year in the Cards system and is from Oklahoma.
Sounds like it might have been the guy.
But I also see Hassell was from Rivermines which is very close by where a now non-existant town called Flat River used to be. Grandpa had some kin there going way back, and most likely would have known any baseball guy from aound there. In the 70′s we used to go down to Arkansas on fishing trips with an old guy down there named Leo who had gone into the Army with my grandpa and later pitched for the Cardinals. He was from around that same area and they had know each other all their lives.
[...] over three years ago, what began as a simple question about a curious photo turned into an intensive search. My self-initiated challenge became to try to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the circumstances [...]