Inconsistent Crimson Baseball Team Stands 13-9 With Five Games To Go

Anybody who tries to formulate some "definitive" conclusions about the 1959 Harvard baseball team, when it still has five games left on its schedule, ought to have his head examined. Such an attempt represents a most flagrant instance of that hazardous occupation known as Climbing-Out-on-a-Limb. And it is only with a weather eye on the ground below that this writer dares venture out even a few inches toward the uncertain fringes.

What makes the chop-down odds so high in this particular case is the fact that the team has been defying expectations in a most puzzling fashion all season. Estimates of its merits have had to be revised almost from week to week; and there is no reason for thinking that this situation will change in the time that remains.

Back in March when Cage-practice began, the prognosis was very dark indeed. Coach Norm Shepard's flock appeared, at that time, to contain a host of veritable lambs, and only two full-grown specimens. Catcher John Davis and shortstop Mouse Kasarjian both had played for at least a year on the varsity level; but this seemed an alarmingly small nucleus for building a winning team.

Successful Spring Trip

The pre-season gloom was, however, suddenly dispelled by a highly successful trip South, during the spring recess. The varsity won three of four games played on this tour, and several new men performed with a competence not before suspected of them. When the squad returned to Cambridge, hopes for it had risen so high that even an Eastern League pennant seemed within the bounds of possibility.

But the middle of April brought a frustrating reversal of form on the part of the Shepardmen. Sound thrashings at the hands of Navy, Northeastern, and Springfield effectively dashed the hopes of the week before; and subsequent (close) losses to Army and Pennsylvania put the Crimson out of the Eastern League race for good.

This was the low point of the season; after it passed, the talents uncovered on the Southern trip began to reassert themselves. And in the beginning of May the Crimson produced some very fine games (most notably, the decisive victories over Boston College, Princeton, and Holy Cross).

However, whenever the varsity managed to put two or three of these together, there would follow a poor performance--dispelling any illusions that perhaps it had finally "arrived." And now (with the five Commencement-time contests remaining) the team has left its followers with a vague sense of disappointment, a sense of much talent from which a proper return has not been secured.

Three Fine Hitters

For after mid-season it was apparent that raw talent was there in abundance. Few college teams are blessed with three such naturally gifted hitters as Chet Boulris (currently batting .387), George Harrington (.382), and Al Martin (.316). Dick Shima (.282) and Davis (.261) are also basically sound batters. And taken altogether, coach Shepard's starting nine averages just 15 points below .300.

The pitchers, also, have developed to a high degree of competence. The consistently fine moundsman who is Ed Wadsworth this spring bears no resemblance to the wild man who was Ed Wads-worth a year ago. His won-lost record currently stands at 4-2, and his earned-run average is a remarkable 1.98.

Byron Johnson has performed steadily throughout the season (is also 4-2, with an E.R.A. of 3.08), and Wally Cook has made sufficient late-season improvement to give Shepard a trio of reliable pitchers. Cook was unimpressive in his first few starts, but his wins over Columbia and Holy Cross, plus an excellent relief-job against Yale have raised his stock considerably.

But why, then, should a team with such good pitching and batting have lost eight games and failed to play at even a .500 pace in the Eastern League?

Not a Smart Team

For one thing, the fielding has been average at best; and on occasion it has been horrendous. And more important still, this has not been a smart team. Alertness, resourcefulness, the ability to make the best of opportunities: those are important characteristics of all truly good baseball squads. And it is just here that Harvard has been conspicuously lacking--however great its raw physical talent in other areas.

There have been a huge number of missed signs, pick-offs, throws-to-the-wrong-base, and so forth. And the team has been distressingly poor at base-running and bunting. These things may seem like details; but baseball is, to a large degree, a game of details.

A brief comparison of this team with last years' E.I.B.L. championship squad may prove instructive. Both possessed a trio of .300-hitters (though the averages of this year's Big Three were somewhat higher); and both had dependable pitching staffs.

The 1958 outfit had a decided advantage in fielding, but, most of all, they were fast-thinking and extremely base-ball-wise. Men like Bob Cleary, Tom Bergantino, and Frank Saia were never out-hustled or outsmarted--as this year's nine often was.

Of course, no team that compiles a 13-8 record overall, wins the Greater Boston League championship, and defeats both Princeton and Yale, could be called a failure or anything like it. Superficially, indeed, the season has been quite a success.... But the memory of those five losses in crucial Eastern League games is not easily effaced. It is hard to escape the feeling that things might have turned out a lot better than they actually did.