Jock and Balls
10 Craziest Baseball Rules
The guy in the photo above is Alexander Cartwright, and he’s credited with inventing the modern game of baseball. Only problem is that those initial rules from the 1840s were pretty messed up, in comparison to how baseball is played today. We’ve lauded a lot of these old timey baseball guys with handlebar mustaches in the past, but we might have to take it all back. In the 1800s, baseball was a goofy game with a lot of stupid rules. These guys would probably crap themselves if they had to face guys like Justin Verlander or Alex Rodriguez today.
*****
My great great Von Paris grandfather was a big fan of baseball. When he arrived in Baltimore in 1892 as a young German immigrant, the (5-0-1): Boston Beaneaters (102-48) had beaten the Cleveland Spiders (93-56) in the 1892 Championship Series. My great great grandfather meanwhile began a small business to help people move their belongings as their jobs relocated around Baltimore. One hundred plus years later, Von Paris Moving and Storage is known as the best Baltimore movers bar none if you want the most reliable, professional service to transport both residential and business goods from point A to point B. The business has remained in the family with third, fourth and fifth generation family members continuing to provide outstanding service as “The Mover with the Gentle Touch.” And I want you to know we are all baseball fans. In fact Von Paris has moved many professional sports teams including the Balitmore Orioles!
Here are The 10 Craziest Baseball Rules You Would Never Believe Existed.
Besides the whole “no minorities” thing that we’re glossing over, that is.
10. Pitchers Could Cover Balls With Just About Anything
Before 1920, pitchers could cover the ball with spit, Vaseline, road kill, Nickelodeon slime or whatever the hell else they wanted. It apparently worked. That Babe Ruth guy didn’t start hitting a billion home runs a year until they outlawed it. We don’t actually know for a fact they used road kill, but that whole ‘Dead Ball Era’ thing would make more sense if they did.
9. Balls And Strikes Didn’t Really Exist
When baseball started, hitters just kind of stood at the plate whacking away until they hit the ball somewhere in fair territory. That created a question of what constituted a walk (see Rule Four) or a strikeout. In 1887, walks were even considered hits. And that was also the first year that batters were awarded first base if they got hit by a pitch. Called strikes didn’t even exist until 1858. And until 1863, base runners would run advance on foul balls. And as you’ll see in Rule Three, they didn’t necessarily run to the correct bases.
Have you ever seen a Little League game with 6-year-olds? It’s pretty terrible. That’s how we imagine old timey baseball must have looked. We even picture an old farmer so terrible at hitting, that his coach has to bring out a tee.
8. Catchers Had Zero Protection
See that old timey idiot in the picture below? It’s not his fault. Chest protectors weren’t introduced into baseball until 1885. It wasn’t until six years after that when catchers got to wear padded mitts. These poor bastards just had to stand there in a dumb stance and wait to get their goddamn faces blown off with a foul tip. But, then again, you’ll see from #1 that these guys weren’t really facing ‘the heat’ from pitchers until 1883. It’s just amazing it took the rules committee two years to realize that catching was a fairly dangerous job.
7. Pitchers Used To ‘Throw’ From 45 Feet
You’ll notice in the picture below that the pitcher (who isn’t even on a mound) looks crazily close to the batter. That’s because the whole 60-feet-6-inches thing didn’t exist until 1893. But hey, that’s 15.5 feet shorter to hurl your heavy-as-hell Vaseline/spit/pubes ball towards your poor bastard catcher.
6. Hitters Had Flat Bats
For some reason that we can’t figure out, hitters used to have flat bats until 1893. They really took their cricket influence seriously. Why did they want to use paddle bats? Maybe they wanted to spankthe ball. Sounds pretty lame to us.
4. Hitters Got Nine Balls Before They Walked
We said in Rule Nine that baseball rule makers had a real hard time with balls and strikes, but in 1879 it was decided that nine balls made a walk. How bad did a pitcher have to be to walk somebody in 1879? You would’ve had to be blind. It wasn’t until 1889 that the number was finally whittled down to four.
3. Base Runners Didn’t Have To Touch Every Base
From 1858 – 1864, base runners didn’t have to touch every base in order. Did they also play the “Benny Hill Show” song while these goofballs ran all over the field?
2. Batters Could Call For The Type Of Pitch They Wanted
From 1867-1887, batters had the privilege of calling for a low pitch or a high pitch. What was the point of pitching? Did the pitcher also have to wipe the batter after they went to the bathroom?
1. Pitchers Threw Underhand
That should blow your mind. Major League Baseball officially started in 1876, but it wasn’t until 1883 that pitchers were allowed to throw overhand. The initial rules of baseball stated that pitchers had to throw the ball as if they were pitching a horseshoe. So these old batters got to call for their pitch and get it thrown to them underhand. They couldn’t step towards the plate. No wonder the pitchers covered the balls in battery acid and pig manure.
Love baseball (or battery acid and pig manure)? Check out our lists on 10 Baseball Players You Wouldn’t Want To Sit On You and 10 Worst Baseball Teams Of The Past 30 Years.
The 8 Ugliest Baseball Uniforms Of The 1970’s
The 1970’s were a dark era for the baseball uniform. Just look at that douchey Phillies uniform above. The classic logos and button-down looks took a back seat to loud disco-era colors and the aesthetics of a psychedelic sleepover. Or something. They just looked bad. And you thought this year’s NBA All-Star jerseys looked stupid. Here are The 8 Ugliest Baseball Uniforms of the 1970’s.
8. 1969-1971 Oakland Athletics
Really, Oakland A’s? Sleeveless with a big yellow electric banana suit? We know you had Reggie Jackson and Catfish Hunter and Rollie Fingers, but that doesn’t give you an excuse to dress like Jimi Hendrix during road games.
7. 1978-1981 Chicago Cubs
The baby blue road jerseys of the late ’70’s were bad enough without adding white pinstripes. The sight of Bill Buckner and Dave Kingman on your team is bad enough.
6. 1971-1972 Baltimore Orioles
Somebody tell Charlie Brown that The Great Pumpkin did exist.
5. 1977-1979 Pittsburgh Pirates
They actually won the ‘79 World Series looking like school buses. The pillbox hat was a nice touch. They actually brought these uniforms back from 1981-1984, right before the skinny Barry Bonds era. At what point do you stop looking like pirates and start looking like you’re in your p.j.’s after a night at Studio 54?
4. 1979 Philadelphia Phillies
Poor Mike Schmidt. He’d have to wait a whole year to win the World Series, the MVP Award and not look like a ketchup bottle for part of the season.
3. 1975-1977 Cleveland Indians
Throughout the ’70’s, the Indians always had pretty awful jerseys. They did manage to keep Chief Wahoo hidden for the most part, but when they went to the wacky font and an all red road jersey,that’s when they were most offensive
2. 1976-1981 Chicago White Sox
If disco died at Comiskey Park in 1979, sh*tty uniforms had to wait until 1982 to meet their death on Chicago’s South Side. The Good Guys didn’t wear black until 1990. And from 1976-1981 the Good Guys wore sailor suit softball pajamas.
1. 1972-1973 San Diego Padres
At 6′6″ Dave Winfield’s 1973 rookie uniform was a whole lotta barf-and-diarrhea-colored fabric. 1972 and ‘73 were definitely two years that San Diego did not keep it classy
The 8 Worst Baseball Trades Of The Past 25 Years
As the trade deadline inches closer in Major League Baseball, we thought we’d take a look back at some of the trades over years (with 20/20 hindsight) to talk about the worst trades on the books. How would the now-defunct Expos have looked with Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez? How bad would theGeorge W. Bush-run Rangers love the Sammy steroid years? We’ll never know. But here are The 8 Worst Baseball Trades of the Past 25 Years.
8. 1989: The Rangers Trade Wilson Alvarez, Sammy Sosa and Scott Fletcher to the White Sox for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique
This is the trade that George W. Bush calls the biggest mistake of his adulthood. So you know it has to be bad. Alvarez pitched a no hitter in his first start with the Sox. And Sammy went on to be a superstar. It was almost as if he was on a crapload of steroids. But it shouldn’t be that bad considering Harold Baines is no chump.
That’s pretty bad, but not quite as bad as…
7. 1992: The White Sox Trade Sammy Sosa and Ken Patterson to the Cubs for George Bell
George Bell was a flat out smelly turd for the White Sox. George W. Bush should be happy he didn’t make this call.
6. 1993: The Dodgers Trade Pedro Martinez to the Expos for Delino DeShields
Remember when Delino DeShields was a hotshot young player? We kinda do. Put Pedro would go on to win the first of his 3 Cy Young Awards with the Expos before they decided they didn’t want to play baseball in Montreal anymore.
5. 1991: The Orioles Trade Curt Schilling, Pete Harnisch and Steve Finley to the Astros for Glenn Gavis
Schilling wasn’t amazing on the Astros, but he did end up winning 3 rings and immortalizing the bloody sock. Harnisch was an All-Star for the Astros and Finley would go on to two All-Star Games. Glenn Davis would break his jaw fighting other sumbags in a bar. His 13 home runs in ‘92 were the most he’d hit the rest of his lousy career.
4. 1989: The Expos Trade Randy Johnson, Gene Harris and Brian Holman to the Mariners for Mark Langston and Mike Campbell
Hey Expos, do you want a future 300 game winner? Do you want a one-two punch of Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez? No? Okay. No wonder you don’t have a team anymore.
3. 1997: The Mariners Trade Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek to the Red Sox for Heathcliff Slocumb
It’s not like Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek are bona fide Hall of Famers, but that trade is two really good players for Heathcliff motherf*cking Slocumb. Varitek and Lowe have gone on to a combined 5 All-Star Games. Slocumb washes cars in our parking lot.
2. 1990: The Red Sox Trade Jeff Bagwell to the Astros For Larry Andersen
Back when the Red Sox hated winning, they got the mediocre Andersen to ‘help out’ in the bullpen. Pete Gammons huffed and puffed abut the Red Sox trading away a future batting champion. He’s not in the Hall of Fame for nothing. Bagwell would win the 1991 Rookie of the Year, win the 1994 MVP and play in 4 All-Star Games in 15 years with the Astros.
1. 1987: The Tigers Trade John Smoltz to the Braves for Doyle Alexander
8 All-Star Games and a Cy Young later, Detroit NATIVE John Smoltz is still rubbing it in the Tigers’ faces. Doyle Alexander? Come on.
More Background on JockAndBalls.com
JockAndBalls.com is a unique website that has gained attention for its irreverent and humorous approach to sports commentary, particularly baseball. Below is a comprehensive exploration of the site, covering its history, audience, cultural significance, reviews, and examples of its content.
Overview and History
JockAndBalls.com is an online platform dedicated to sports commentary, focusing on baseball but often branching into other sports and pop culture topics. The site is known for its satirical tone, blending humor with historical anecdotes and quirky facts about sports. While specific details about its founding are scarce, it appears to have emerged as part of a broader trend of informal sports journalism, catering to audiences seeking entertainment alongside information.
The website's name itself is a playful nod to both athletic gear (jockstraps) and the sport of baseball (balls), encapsulating its cheeky approach to sports coverage. This branding aligns with the site's mission to offer an alternative perspective on sports culture, diverging from traditional reporting.
Audience
JockAndBalls.com appeals primarily to sports enthusiasts who enjoy light-hearted and unconventional takes on their favorite games. Its audience likely skews younger, including millennials and Gen Z readers who appreciate humor-laden content. The site's focus on baseball suggests it attracts fans of America's pastime, but its inclusion of pop culture references broadens its appeal to those interested in entertainment and history.
Social media platforms likely play a significant role in driving traffic to the site, as humorous snippets and lists are easily shareable. The audience may also include casual fans who are not deeply invested in the technicalities of sports but enjoy engaging with quirky trivia and comedic commentary.
Content Style and Examples
The hallmark of JockAndBalls.com is its witty, irreverent tone. Articles often feature lists or rankings that mix historical facts with humorous observations. For example:
-
"10 Craziest Baseball Rules You Would Never Believe Existed": This article highlights bizarre historical rules in baseball, such as pitchers being allowed to cover balls with substances like spit or Vaseline before 1920. It combines historical insights with humorous commentary on how these rules would fare in modern baseball.
-
"The 8 Ugliest Baseball Uniforms of the 1970s": This piece critiques the loud and often garish uniforms of the disco era, using colorful language to describe teams like the Oakland Athletics as resembling "electric bananas."
The site also delves into broader pop culture topics related to sports, such as infamous trades or peculiar traditions. Its content is characterized by sharp wit and a willingness to poke fun at players, teams, and historical quirks.
Cultural Significance
JockAndBalls.com reflects a growing trend in digital media where traditional journalism merges with entertainment. By adopting a casual tone and focusing on humor, the site challenges the conventional seriousness often associated with sports reporting. This approach resonates with modern readers who consume content for both information and amusement.
The website contributes to the democratization of sports commentary by making it accessible and engaging for wider audiences. Its irreverence also serves as a form of cultural critique, highlighting absurdities within sports history that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Reviews and Reception
While formal reviews of JockAndBalls.com are limited, anecdotal evidence suggests that readers appreciate its unique blend of humor and historical trivia. Fans often praise the site for making sports history entertaining rather than dry or overly technical. However, its satirical tone may not appeal to purists who prefer more traditional sports journalism.
Critics might argue that the site's focus on humor occasionally overshadows factual accuracy or depth. Nonetheless, this trade-off seems intentional, as JockAndBalls.com prioritizes engagement over exhaustive analysis.
Press & Media Coverage
JockAndBalls.com has yet to achieve widespread recognition in mainstream media but occupies a niche space within digital sports commentary. Its articles are likely shared across social media platforms where they attract attention for their comedic value.
The site's approach aligns with broader trends in online journalism where personality-driven content thrives. Similar platforms have gained traction by blending humor with niche interests, suggesting potential growth opportunities for JockAndBalls.com if it continues to expand its reach.
Known For
-
Humorous Sports Commentary: The site is best known for its satirical take on baseball history and culture.
-
Lists and Rankings: Articles often feature ranked lists that mix trivia with comedic observations.
-
Pop Culture References: Content frequently incorporates elements from broader entertainment topics.
Cultural & Social Impact
JockAndBalls.com contributes to the evolving landscape of sports journalism by offering an alternative voice that prioritizes humor over traditional reporting. It challenges norms by presenting sports as not just competitive events but cultural phenomena ripe for critique and laughter.
This shift mirrors broader societal changes in media consumption where audiences increasingly seek entertainment alongside information. By embracing this trend, JockAndBalls.com positions itself as a relevant player in contemporary digital journalism.
JockAndBalls.com stands out as a distinctive platform for humorous sports commentary, particularly within the realm of baseball. Its irreverent tone appeals to younger audiences seeking entertainment alongside information. While it may not cater to purists or those seeking exhaustive analysis, the site's playful approach fills a niche within digital media.
As it continues to grow, JockAndBalls.com has the potential to expand its influence by leveraging social media and diversifying its content offerings. With its unique blend of humor and history, it exemplifies how modern sports journalism can evolve to meet changing audience preferences while maintaining cultural relevance.