I’d like to reprint a message I posted years ago about the Stan Musial - Frank Baumholtz confrontation. Sept. 28 marks 68 years since this happened:

On September 28, 1952, the last game of the year, Stan ‘The Man’ Musial, eventual Hall of Fame outfielder for the St Louis Cardinals and one of the greatest hitters ever in major league baseball, took the mound and pitched for the only time in his career, and he did so to only one batter, Ohio alumnus Frank Baumholtz, in a confrontation agreed upon before the game.

After beating Frank of the Chicago Cubs to win his sixth batting title, Musial faced his adversary from the mound. Frankie was a left-handed hitter, but that day he batted right handed, the only time he ever did, ‘to even the playing field’. On the first pitch from Musial, Baumholtz hit a ball so hard that it ricocheted off the shin of third baseman Solly Hemus ending up in the left field corner. Baumholtz reached base on what was ruled an error. A gracious Musial maintained that it was as clean a hit as he ever saw.

P.S. Frankie was a great basketball player at Ohio, the only Bobcat to be voted 1st team All American. But he ended up playing baseball and in his rookie season, he played against Jackie Robinson who won the first ever Rookie of the Year Award (now called the Jackie Robinson Award). Frank came in second.

Appreciate the story, but I find it funny how so many old players would have just killed it with a three-point shot. Granted, if they grew up with one they’d practice more, but there are always these stories of amazing shooters making shots from everywhere.

However, statistics and video from that era would show a much different story. Shooting numbers across basketball were pretty terrible, so I don’t think they were magically efficient from 30+ feet when most guys struggled to hit a consistent 15 footer.

Show the statistics you mention! Not sure of your age, but I have been around the game a long time and would probably argue shooters were just as good then as now. The game has transformed into success for athletic players who are less likely to be great shooters. That is not to say great shooters are not there today. They are. Just interested to see the stats you talk of.

I don't know what game you are watching these days, but if you can't shoot in today's NBA, you are basically struggling to get any playing time. Teams have room for one non-shooter at most on the floor at a time. Your comment makes me think you haven't paid attention to basketball in the last decade.

Shooting comparisons to the 1940s are laughable. Even when the three point line was introduced in the 1970s and 1980s, announcers would flip out when a guy would bomb it from deep like it was the most amazing risk ever. So players were scared to shoot from deep too much when it counted as three, but when it was a two pointer, they just bombed away from half court on the regular?

Frank Baumholtz shot under 30% from the field on 19 shots per game in the BAA, and 77% from the free throw line. The entire league shot 28% from the field and 67% from the free throw line. There was one guy in the entire league shooting over 80% from the free throw line. These are the shooters as good then as now?

So he forgot, along with every other player in basketball, how to shoot going from college to the pros? Sorry I don't have the player efficiency ratings from the 1941 NCAA season handy.

None of these guys in the 1940s come close to even average shooters today. It's not even the same sport in that aspect. Baumholtz pulling up from half court with any type of consistency is a fabricated old-time story.

Every sane person agrees with me.

Are you really going to try to make a case that a guy 2.5 years older than Mr. jump shot himself Ken Sailors was hoisting flat footed set shots and awkward one-handed runners from half court and making them? And this is the man who could shoot as well as current ones?

Baumholtz averaged 12.9 points per game for his career. So if he took every single shot from deep (he didn't), he made probably 4 to 6 shots from the field per game. Given the fact that shooters in that era were pretty terrible, and, you know, there was no incentive to actually shoot from deep, it's hard to imagine lil Frankie made any more than 1 or 2 shots from deep. So congrats, Baumholtz is now a 15 points per game scorer. Time for all the records to shatter!

I hate it when facts get in the way of fabricated old time stories. Guess what else? Cool Papa Bell couldn't turn the light switch off and get in bed before it was dark.

You seem to be missing the point here that there is a difference between respecting what a team did in their era, and then trying to compare eras. Shooting is so much more refined now, and it is frankly an insult to even claim these guys with bad form and glued to the ground know what they are doing.

I love the Baumholtz story. I'd love video of that, as it sounds quite interesting. One minor correction, though. Frank wasn't second in the Rookie of the Year voting to Jackie Robinson. He actually finished fifth that year, well behind the top vote-getters. The league award was a little different then, as it was a Major League award, not specified between the American and National Leagues. If that were the case, Frank would've finished third in the NL, behind Jackie and Larry Jansen, who went 21-5 as a pitcher with a 3.17 ERA. Two years later, in 1949, the award began to be given in both leagues.

Interesting note to baseball fans...three times the winner of the AL and the NL Rookies of the Year have ended up both going into the Hall of Fame.

1955--Luis Aparicio and Frank Robinson

1967--Rod Carew and Tom Seaver

1977--Eddie Murray and Andre Dawson

There will be at least one more addition to this list, 2001. That year, Ichiro won it in the AL (along with the MVP) and Albert Pujols won it in the NL. 2012 has potential, but only Mike Trout is a lock for the HOF, whereas Bryce Harper would need to do a lot of work to prove worthy.

Why would you even think of arguing with Mr. History (revisionist history)

Well, if he was good from the shorter half courts of the day, and if there had been the current three-point line, he probably would have shot more outside shots. His teammates would have fed him the ball more for the higher counting shots from beyond the line. I don't know how you can conclude definitively that that wouldn't have put him in contention for a national scoring title. I think, maybe, you just like to argue. This is, of course, a good place to argue over almost anything. So, you're in good company in that regard. ;-)

Imagine actually thinking that a guy in the 1940s "was good" from half court. Yeah, Larry Bird would only make about one three a game 40 years later as arguably the best shooter on the planet, but ole Frankie Baumholtz would have changed the game forever with flat footed swishes from 30 feet.

I blame Trautwein really. Should have allowed Baumholtz to just shoot his money shot from half court every time down the court.

I wonder if you've ever stopped to think about how ridiculous it is to believe these old stories. Of course, I'm guessing you probably stretch the truth to young people now about how unbelievable some athletes were. If it wasn't for the invention of time you'd probably think Jesse Owens is still the fastest human ever.

I'm not following. Everyone would have the three-point line, right? So other people would be scoring more as well. Wouldn't things largely reflect the actual "standings"?

OCF, I’ll give you that he was a great all around athlete.

Yes, Yes, and to some extent (just shows he's a good athlete, and could probably adjust to new rules). Reportedly he was one of only a few who shot from that far from the basket fairly regularly. Just saying he would have had a chance to hone those skills even more if it had been rewarded with more. No one will ever know if my hypothesis here is correct. So, it's not testable. Therefore, it's not scientific. It's just my personal hunch.