Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1880 Natick Boarding House Nine Woody Eckard (bio) In mid-June 1880, a small hotel in the town of Natick, Massachusetts had nine "base ballists" living there as boarders. They were all members of the Natick Base Ball Club, a minor professional team active May through July. No fewer than seven of these men also played Major League Baseball, as did two others on the team earlier and later that year. One member has been honored by the Baseball Hall of Fame, though not for his Natick exploits. This article introduces the players, then explains the unusual circumstance of an entire team staying at the same boarding house. Next, the article describes the Natick's 1880 season and the careers of the major leaguers, providing a window to the operation of "minor league" teams and player career paths. The individual details in an 1880 US Census document, including full name, age, and state or country of birth, allow accurate player identification and linkage to major league profiles on baseball-reference.com. Last, we present evidence of an apparent unfortunate outcome of the close quarters living that resonates in our current pandemic age. the natick nine While conducting unrelated research on Ancestry.com, the author happened upon a Natick US Census document from June 18, 1880 describing the persons staying at a small boarding hotel.1 The document lists the proprietor Daniel Sheehan and his family. Next are nine "boarders" who all identify their occupation as "base ballist." Table 1 lists the ball players in alphabetical order with related information from the Census document. The document also indicates that a few other persons lived at the hotel. Of course, nine baseball players listed together suggests the possibility that this is an entire team. Figure 1 shows a brief summary of the Natick Club's 1880 season, published in the August 28 New York Clipper, that lists the primary nine players and their stats.2 Eight of the boarding hotel ball players match the Natick players listed in the summary. The missing player, Stephen Dignan, shows up in a June 4 Natick box score from The Boston Globe of June 5. Thus, all nine of [End Page 100] the boarding house "base ballists" were members of the Natick Base Ball Club. Click for larger view View full resolution Table 1. The Sheehan boarding hotel "base ballists" The Census document indicates that all the players were single, and all but one aged twenty-four years or younger. Seven of the nine Naticks were Irish: one was born in Ireland and six with one or both parents born in Ireland. Of the seven US natives, six were born in Massachusetts and the seventh (Robinson) in Pennsylvania. The Natick Bulletin of May 21 described player origins.3 Cronin, Donovan, McLaughlin, and Shaunessy were from small towns in eastern Massachusetts, and the remainder were mostly "Boston boys." Click for larger view View full resolution Fig. 1. Summary of the Natick Club's 1880 season, with player stats, from the New York Clipper, August 28, 1880. The financial structure of the Natick Club could not be gleaned from newspaper searches. The players were no doubt compensated, but on a small-town club, fixed salaries were unlikely given attendance uncertainties. Natick's 1880 population was 8,112 persons. A gate-sharing "cooperative" arrangement was more likely, or perhaps salaries on a week-to-week basis. A Natick newspaper article advertising the May 29 game with Hudson mentions an admission fee of twenty-five cents.4 [End Page 101] Natick also had a baseball club in 1879. However, only one player carried over to 1880 (Pettee) based on 1879 box scores. There was no baseball club in Natick in 1881, perhaps because the 1880 club disbanded early for lack of fan support (see below). why all nine at one hotel? And now to the key question of how an entire team came to be billeted at a single small hotel. As it happens, the answer is linked to the question of who managed the Naticks. The May 28 Natick Bulletin stated, without elaboration: "Mr. Sheehan is the manager." Is this the Daniel Sheehan who ran the hotel? Confirmation...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".