While I was researching last week's piece about the Pirates and the American Baseball Guild, I came across a small story that was a little too long and off-topic to be a quick aside. It reinforces two maxims: "Never argue with someone who buys ink by the barrel." and, especially in view of some the questions that appeared in Live Qs this week, "Everything old is new again."
The first inkling was this uncredited item which appeared on the sports page of the May 7, 1946, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
An Apology -- And an Explanation
This is an explanation and an apology which the Post-Gazette feels it owes to nearly 800 Post-Gazette carrier boys and their parents. The boys are the lads who, for their splendid sales records, were to have been guests of the Post-Gazette at the Pittsburgh-Boston game last Saturday. Tickets for the game had been bought by the Post-Gazette at the usual reduced rate of 95 cents each for large blocks of tickets.
The game was rained out. Some of the boys turned up at Forbes Field on Sunday and presented their rain checks for admission. The Pirate management, with its usual indifference to building good will among the younger generation -- the ticket buyers of tomorrow -- refused them admission.
The rain checks were standard, and carried the notation that they would be good for an admission at any subsequent game. Representations by the Post-Gazette to the Pirate management finally resulted in orders to admit the boys but by that time the first game was an hour under way, all seats were gone and all but a few of the lads had gone home in disappointment. They were hardly in a mood to grow up into Pirate fans.
The Post-Gazette wants to make amends to those lads. To that end it has purchased a block of tickets which will be honored at the Kennywood amusement park any time they are presented. The Post-Gazette regrets that its representatives were not welcome at Forbes Field but feels sure there are other places where such a fine group of up-and-coming young Americans will be greeted in a friendlier manner. To their parents we extend our apologies for the unfortunate affair and we make this explanation to prevent misunderstanding.
Post-Gazette sports editor Havey J. Boyle wrote a daily column called Mirrors of Sport. On May 10, he featured a letter from a newsboy's father. Excerpts:
"My 13-year-old son was one of the unfortunates.
"He had been led to believe his rain check was good for the games the following day and was considerably exercised when told it was not good. He had taken only what money he thought he would need for street car, ice cream, etc., but by borrowing a dime from a buddy he was able to get a ticket.
"In order to be home in time to deliver the Post-Gazette at 7:30 the lad left the park immediately following the first game and walked the eight miles to his home [in] Dormont.
"Two impressions were made on the lad: First, the size of a dime when needed for street car fare; second, how hungry the Pittsburgh Baseball Association can be for a few extra dimes."
"JOHN L. MEIGHEN"
After commiserating with his correspondent, Boyle's response included "Because the Brooklyn double-header was a sell-out, with even an overflow standing-room crowd on hand, every 95-cent admission honored on that represented a 'loss' to the ball club of 30 cents ... because the 95-cent ticket was 30 cents less expensive than the usual general admission price of $1.25. ... Since the maximum number of cut-price tickets was 800, it takes but little calculation to show the ball club stood to 'lose' 800 times 30 cents or $240.
"That is a $240 maximum 'loss' in the unlikely event that everyone of the rain check holders turned up and crowded out that many $1.25 fans."
"For a lousy $240 -- pretty small compared to the approximate $35,000 gate on the day in question -- the ball club was willing to offend a newspaper which largely through the consideration of its sports department personnel has seldom been harshly critical, often friendly, and frequently as co-operative as a stockholder in the club would be."
"I can't say I was surprised at hearing about the newsboy brush-off. I was a little prepared for that last season when Pie Traynor told me he was refused admission at the pass gate because he didn't have his pass with him -- and he went to the ticket window and paid to get in. How's that for par in boorishness?"
And $240 became the symbol for the front office's cheapness.
Boyle wrote another column about it on the 13th. On May 15, a selection of 11 letters from angry fans appeared.
The last Boyle column on the subject appeared on May 21, 1946:
The ever-increasing quantity of mail provoked by the two-bits and almost incredible action of the Pirate management to "save" $240 by refusing to honor on a sell-out day rain checks held by a group of newsboys leads to two impressions:
First that many fans doubt whether there will be a change in the generally conservative attitude toward pennant-winning without a change in ownership.
Secondly, that if the present ownership is to win back the good-will of that considerable section of fandom which is now complaining it will be necessary to take a new direction on two levels.
On the higher and more important level is a demand that the ownership give some striking evidence that first division baseball short of a pennant is not good enough for Pittsburgh.
On a lower level, although an important one, too, is a demand that the ownership take steps to let the fans know their patronage is appreciated in contrast to the present attitude which says that since this is the only butcher shop in town the customers are to be treated as nuisances when they're not being treated as interlopers.
As usual in events of this kind the pressure that the ball club created by figuratively kicking in the teeth newsboy patrons in order to gain $240 is reflected in the extreme demand for a change in ownership. One extreme action nearly always produces an opposite reaction.
_____________________
If the ownership is to relieve the general dissatisfaction as represented in the voluntary poll by mail it will start re-examining the virtues of a policy that has produced no pennant in 18 years -- a performance which puts it in the dubious category of the Phils and Braves, both of whom have to struggle along against opposition from rival clubs. [American League teams in the same city.]
That pennants cannot be bought is axiomatic, but as pointed out previously here the ball club that would show such anxiety about saving $240 finds the burden of proof on it in relation to its willingness to spend large amounts to buy material that would increase pennant prospects. Whatever its apologists may say -- and I have been among them -- the club is faced now with the problem of giving some new evidence that the $240 item was just an incidental design and not part of a general pattern.
_____________________
It was suggested here that when the newest and amazing flouting of fan opinion came to light the short-sighted economy could prove to be one of the most expensive "savings" the club ever made and the reaction of the fans who have leaped to a long suppressed attack offers proof.
The ways and means, the problems to be overcome, and the frustrations to be incurred will add to the total bill and must be viewed by the ownership as natural heirs to the parsimony so openly advertised.
The unfavorable publicity and fan-attention showered on the club's pinch-penny demonstration will also help light up the sale of Mort Cooper to the Braves and Walker Cooper to the Giants. The lamp of inquiry will also play brightly on any future purchase of first run material by clubs other than the Pirates.
_____________________
Beyond this demanded change in high-level policy there is an under-current of resentment against the treatment accorded fans who, having no other club here to support and owning a characteristic fondness for big league baseball, patronize the Pirates anyway.
This treatment, of course, was lighted up by the high-handed refusal to honor rain checks, but there is other testimony in the mails to show this kind of stuff is not incidental. Sometimes, it seems almost studied.
One example may be cited. A lady patron at a night game finds the harsh nocturnal air coolish on her soft shoulders. She nudges her escort to explain her discomfort. He dutifully proceeds to retrieve the benny from their car parked outside. His secret griping at his sweetie pie is not lessened by the experience he he encounters at the outer gate.
_____________________
Men, to the barricades. What ho, without. Man the ramparts. The spears, me hearties, and the blunder-buss. This foul thing in the garb of man would break a rule. He would like to have a pass-out check. Away, away with him. (I have exaggerated the confusion a simple request to leave the park momentarily to retrieve a soft covering for a fair one has caused among the hired help at Forbes Field. So I shall reduce it to its real proportions.)
"No, you can't get out to get the coat because we don't issue pass out checks."
"But how will I get back in -- my fair one is shivering. By this time the poor thing may be turning blue."
"Well, you could pay to get back in again."
_____________________
Now this and other money business of the same nature plainly calls for a new approach, a different climate, a friendly atmosphere.
Will this policy now undergo a change? It will be worth watching.
Those of you who got to the end of last week's piece will remember that ownership did, in fact, sell the club by the end of the 1946 season, when they finished seventh. Despite investing significant money in Hank Greenberg, the Pirates still finished last in 1947, and a fourth-place finish in 1948 would be their only visit to the first division until 1958. Attendance did pick up in 1947, so maybe a better policy toward the customers made them more anxious to see Greenberg and Ralph Kiner.
But that was after the saga of $240 in 1946.
