For the benefit of those who don't know, the "ICIs" refer to computer-generated, day-by-day records assembled by Information Concepts, Incorporated in the late 1960s.  These were compiled from boxscores and game accounts in the absence of official records for certain league-years, for the preparation of the first Macmillan BASEBALL ENCYCLOPEDIA.  They were researched and inputted by a battery of computer nerds who knew little about baseball (one of them, Steve Hirdt, is now an Elias Sports Bureau executive).  The ICIs cover the AA (1882-91), UA (1884), PL (1908), NL (1891-1902), AL (1901-04), and FL (1914-15); there are conflicting accounts as to what happened to the 1876-90 NL.  After the encyclopedia's publication in 1969, the ledger-sized ICI books, each containing one league-year, were donated to the National Baseball Library.  The books were microfilmed a few years ago.  They serve as the basis for prehistoric records found in most baseball encyclopedias today.

        I've spent countless hours with the ICIs over the years, and have come across many handwritten notes and additions.  Some, done by Pete Palmer or myself, are identified as to when and by whom they were put there; most aren't.  I suspect that many were done in the closing days of the book's production by the ICI group, but theoretically, they could have been written by just about anyone at any time during a 30-plus-year period.  At least there are dates so people can cross-check.

Bill Deane

7 Jun 2006, Bill Deane wrote:

> Per ICI, Mullane got the win in this game (toward a season record of
> 23-26). Radbourn's sheet shows a 10-13 record, but there is another
> win pencilled in for the game of June 30, making him 11-13.

Radbourn 1891 is 11-13 in the first edition Baseball Encyclopedia, so
the handwritten note is incorporated. Is that generally true of the
handnotes that are cited in these discussions?

Paul Wendt