Was Seitz A Thief?

A quick comparison between the National Pastime and 1951 APBA Boards

Was Seitz A Thief?

Well, what do you think?

This question — this topic — has led to heated discussions in our community since National Pastime was first rediscovered back in the mid-1970s.

My opinion has changed over time.

I’ll make this short and sweet and let the comment section have at it.

In my opinion, these are the strikes against Seitz:

• APBA is clearly derived from National Pastime. “Clearly” as in the wording is exactly the same. This is absolutely evident in most parts of the original 1951 boards — and sticks out like a sore thumb when you look at fielding column 3 with the bases empty.

• Seitz never gave credit to National Pastime or Clifford Van Beek. This part drives me nuts, by the way. I wish Seitz would have said more about how and why he devised what he devised. I know he wanted an air of secrecy around APBA — but the fact that he clung to this desire of being worshiped like a tabletop baseball god even after the truth came out really bothers me.

• Seitz intimidated people away from making alterations to his game, both subtly and overtly. For example, this comes from a Frequently Asked Questions list in an APBA pamphlet from the early 1970s:

Never mind the fact that APBA had no baseball “patents” to speak of. “Don’t even try to market it yourself” is a fun way to distract people from the fact that the APBA baseball game was clearly based on another man’s game in the first place.

However, there are reasons to consider APBA completely different from National Pastime. In other words, there are reasons why I think APBA might have won a copyright infringement lawsuit:

• Seitz’ innovations were significant and important. The pitching system, the fielding system, the ability to call your own bunt, and the ability to play the infield in were all part of the game from the start. These were not minor innovations, and many of the additional ratings that Seitz came up with over the years defined what APBA was at its core.

• Seitz’ boards were not direct copies of the National Pastime boards. In addition to those innovations, Seitz made a number of changes to the boards that had an influence on the batting averages cards would produce. I’m not convinced that Seitz understood the reasons for the “unusual play result” numbers (36-40), nor do I think Seitz did his due diligence in trying to learn Van Beek’s error system. However, the games are indeed different — so much so that one could argue they are incompatible.

• Seitz’ cards were different. There is no question that Seitz did not fully understand Van Beek’s card making formula. I could see a defense attorney arguing that Seitz’ cards were clearly unique and separate from Van Beek’s — just as the old Japanese Pennant Race baseball board game is unique, separate, and incompatible with APBA.

What do you think?