 |
[Footnote 1: Ten innings] [Footnote 2: Eleven innings]
Two games were drawn in August. —————————————————————————————————————-
Baltimore, Boston and New York led the first division clubs in the pennant race up to August 31st, with the respective percentage figures of .657, .645 and .639, followed by Philadelphia with .562, Brooklyn with .533 and Cleveland with .529, only one Western club being left in the first division, something hitherto unprecedented in League pennant races. Pittsburgh led the second division clubs with the percentage figures of .491 only, that club having fallen off badly in August, with Chicago a good second, followed by Cincinnati, St. Louis, Washington and Louisville, the "Senators" having driven the "Colonels" into the last ditch, the Louisville figures being .302.
Here is the pennant race record up to the close of the August campaign:
AUGUST RECORD. ————————————————————————————————- P P P e P e l r l r L a c L a c W o y e W o y e o s e n o s e n Clubs. n t d t Clubs. n t d t ————————————————————————————————- Baltimore 69 36 105 .657 Pittsburgh 52 54 106 .491 Boston 69 38 107 .645 Chicago 49 58 107 .458 New York 69 39 108 .639 Cincinnati 46 60 106 .434 Philadelphia 59 46 105 .562 St. Louis 44 63 107 .411 Brooklyn 56 49 105 .533 Washington 37 71 108 .343 Cleveland 55 49 104 .529 Louisville 32 74 106 .302 ————————————————————————————————-
By the close of the August campaign the Baltimore club had regained the position in the van, and afterward they were not headed. Then began an exciting struggle between the Boston champions and the "Giants" for second place, but it was not until September 6th that the "Giants" led the "Champions," and then only by the percentage figures of .652 to .646. Baltimore leading at that date with but .676, so it will be seen that the fight between those three was nip and tuck after the end of August. At that time the "Phillies," the Brooklyns and the Clevelands were struggling equally hard for fourth place, the "Phillies" leading, with Brooklyn fifth and Cleveland sixth. By this time Washington had comfortably buried the Louisvilles in the last ditch, and no resurrection followed.
THE SEPTEMBER CAMPAIGN RECORD.
The feature of the last monthly campaign of the championship season was the fight for second place between Boston and New York. When the campaign began Baltimore led with the percentage figures of .667, and it was an exceedingly close fight between the "Champions" and "Giants," the former leading the latter by the percentage figures of .645 to .643 on September 3d. The "Phillies," Brooklyns and Clevelands were the next three in the first division, all three being in the five hundreds in percentage points.
Here is the month's record:
THE SEPTEMBER RECORD. —————————————————————————————————————- Date. Contesting Clubs. City. Pitchers. Score. —————————————————————————————————————- Sept 1 New York vs. Cincinnati New York German Whitrock 8-6 " 1 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Stein Hemming 6-5 " 1 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Kennedy Wadsworth 20-7 " 1 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Baltimore Gleason Cuppy 5-2 " 1 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis Philadelphia Carsey Hawley 19-9 " 1 Washington vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Mercer Menafee 11-4 " 1 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Ehret Mercer 15-6 " 1 Chicago vs. Boston Chicago Terry Stivetts 15-6 " 1 Cincinnati vs. New York New York Dwyer Meekin 8-6 " 1 St. Louis vs. Philadelphia Philadelphia Breitenst'n Fanning 8-6 " 2 No games scheduled " 3 New York vs. Cincinnati New York Meekin Fournier 16-2 " 3 New York vs. Cincinnati New York Rusie Dwyer 6-4 " 3 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Lucid Knell 6-4 " 3 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Daub Inks 9-3 " 3 Boston vs. Chicago Boston Staley Griffith 5-4 " 3 Boston vs. Chicago Boston Nichols Hutchinson 11-4 " 3 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Baltimore Esper Sullivan 13-2 " 3 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Baltimore Hawke Young 10-3 " 3 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis Philadelphia Weyhing Breitenst'n 8-1 " 3 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis Philadelphia Jones Hawley 6-4 " 3 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Gumbert Maul 22-1 " 4 New York vs. Pittsburgh New York Meekin Menafee 14-13 " 4 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Brooklyn Cuppy Stein 8-0 " 4 Boston vs. Louisville Boston Stivetts Knell 20-11 " 4 Baltimore vs. Chicago Baltimore Hemming Terry 9-3 " 4 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Taylor Whitrock 6-2 " 4 St. Louis vs. Washington Washington Breitenst'n Haddock 10-7 " 5 New York vs. Pittsburgh New York Rusie Ehret 4-0 " 5 Brooklyn vs. Cleveland Brooklyn Kennedy Young 2-1 " 5 Boston vs. Louisville Boston Nichols Wadsworth 7-6 " 5 Baltimore vs. Chicago Baltimore Gleason Hutchinson 12-3 " 5 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Carsey Dwyer 15-6 " 5 Washington vs. St. Louis Washington St'kdale A.Cl'kson[1] 7-4 " 6 New York vs. Pittsburgh New York Meekin Gumbert 6-5 " 6 Baltimore vs. Chicago Baltimore Hawke Griffith 14-6 " 6 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Weyhing Fischer 14-7 " 6 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Taylor Whitrock 16-2 " 6 Washington vs. St. Louis Washington Mercer Breitenstein 12-2 " 6 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Brooklyn Sullivan Lucid 13-2 " 6 Louisville vs. Boston Boston Inks Staley 15-10 " 7 No games scheduled " 8 Boston vs. Chicago Chicago Nichols Hutchinson 3-1 " 8 Baltimore vs. Louisville Louisville Gleason Knell 6-3 " 8 Brooklyn vs. St. Louis St. Louis Stein Hawley 6-1 " 8 Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Menafee Weyhing 13-7 " 8 Cincinnati vs. Washington Cincinnati Dwyer Haddock 14-9 " 9 St. Louis vs. Brooklyn St. Louis Br'tsenst'n Kennedy 7-5 " 9 Brooklyn vs. St. Louis St. Louis Kennedy Hawley 11-7 " 9 Baltimore vs. Louisville Louisville Hemming Wadsworth 9-4 " 9 Cleveland vs. Chicago Chicago Cuppy McGill 9-5 " 9 Cincinnati vs. Washington Cincinnati Whitrock Mercer 4-1 " 9 Cincinnati vs. Washington Cincinnati Fisher Stockdale 7-6 " 10 New York vs. Cleveland Cleveland Rusie Sullivan 13-4 " 10 Boston vs. Chicago Chicago Stivetts Terry 25-8 " 10 Baltimore vs. Louisville Louisville Esper Inks 15-6 " 11 Cleveland vs. New York Cleveland Young Meekin 13-3 " 11 New York vs. Cleveland Cleveland Meekin Cuppy 9-1 " 11 Chicago vs. Boston Chicago Hutchinson Staley 17-2 " 11 Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Colcolough Taylor 9-7 " 11 Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Ehret Johnson 9-8 " 12 Brooklyn vs. Chicago Chicago Stein McGill 12-8 " 12 Philadelphia vs. Louisville Louisville Carsey Knell 5-3 " 12 Baltimore vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Gleason Dwyer 16-2 " 12 Cleveland vs. Boston Cleveland Sullivan Stivetts 9-8 " 12 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Gumbert Haddock 9-6 " 13 New York vs. St. Louis St. Louis Rusie Hawley 7-3 " 13 Brooklyn vs. Chicago Chicago Kennedy Hutchinson 8-3 " 13 Boston vs Cleveland Cleveland Nichols Cuppy 11-4 " 13 Philadelphia vs. Louisville Louisville Weyhing Wadsworth 5-2 " 13 Washington vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Mercer Menafee 11-6 " 14 St. Louis vs. New York St. Louis A.Clarkson Meekin 1-0 " 15 New York vs. St. Louis St. Louis Rusie Breitenstein 7-2 " 15 Boston vs. Cleveland Cleveland Stivetts Wallace 7-2 " 15 Chicago vs. Brooklyn Chicago Hutchinson Lucid 10-3 " 15 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Gumbert Stockdale 11-6 " 16 Baltimore vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Gleason Dwyer 14-3 " 16 Cincinnati vs. Baltimore Cincinnati Parrott Hawke 4-3 " 16 Washington vs. Louisville Louisville Mercer Inks 7-6 " 16 Chicago vs. Brooklyn Chicago Griffith Stein 13-5 " 17 New York vs. Chicago Chicago Meekin Hutchinson 5-2 " 17 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Hemming Menafee 10-2 " 17 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Esper Ehret 4-1 " 17 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Cleveland Sullivan Kennedy 12-6 " 17 St. Louis vs Boston St. Louis Hawley Nichols 6-5 " 17 Louisville vs. Washington Louisville Knell Haddock 7-6 " 18 New York vs. Chicago Chicago Rusie Terry 4-3 " 18 New York vs Chicago Chicago Meekin Griffith 9-6 " 18 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Cleveland Young Daub 9-3 " 18 Brooklyn vs. Cleveland Cleveland Lucid Cuppy 7-1 " 18 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Gleason Colcolough 15-8 " 18 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Taylor Fischer 10-4 " 18 Washington vs. Louisville Louisville Mercer Wadsworth 9-4 " 18 St. Louis vs. Boston St. Louis Br'tenst'n Stivetts 5-1 " 19 New York vs. Chicago Chicago Meekin Hutchinson 4-3 " 19 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Carsey Whitrock 12-11 " 19 Cincinnati vs. Philadelphia Cincinnati Parrott Weyhing 8-3 " 19 St. Louis vs. Boston St. Louis Hawley Stivetts 5-4 " 20 Pittsburgh vs. New York Pittsburgh Menafee Rusie 10-3 " 20 Boston vs. Louisville Louisville Nichols Inks 4-3 " 20 Cleveland vs. Washington Cleveland Wallace Boyd 14-8 " 20 Chicago vs. Philadelphia Chicago Abbey Johnson 20-4 " 21 New York vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Meekin Ehret[2] 4-4 " 21 Boston vs. Louisville Louisville Staley Knell 13-6 " 21 Baltimore vs. St. Louis St. Louis Hemming Breitestein 8-4 " 21 Washington vs. Cleveland Cleveland Mullarky Young 4-3 " 21 Chicago vs. Philadelphia Chicago Hutchinson Taylor 11-5 " 22 New York vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Rusie Colcolough 6-2 " 22 Pittsburgh vs. New York Pittsburgh Ehret German 4-1 " 22 Brooklyn vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Stein Fischer 11-6 " 22 Philadelphia vs. Chicago Chicago Carsey Abbey 9-6 " 22 Baltimore vs. St. Louis St. Louis Esper Hawley 6-4 " 22 Boston vs. Louisville Louisville Stivetts Wadsworth 3-2 " 22 Louisville vs. Boston Louisville Inks 6-4 " 22 Cleveland vs. Washington Cleveland Sullivan Anderson 6-5 " 23 Brooklyn vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Kennedy Whitrock 10-9 " 23 Cincinnati vs. Brooklyn Cincinnati Parrott Daub 3-2 " 23 Washington vs. Chicago Chicago Mullarky Terry 6-5 " 23 Chicago vs. Washington Chicago Griffith Boyd 11-5 " 23 Baltimore vs. St. Louis St. Louis Esper Breitenstein 10-4 " 24 New York vs. Louisville Louisville Meekin Knell 8-7 " 24 Boston vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Stivetts Fischer 7-4 " 24 Cleveland vs. Baltimore Cleveland Cuppy Gleason 12-7 " 24 Pittsburgh vs. Brooklyn Pittsburgh Menafee Stein 10-4 " 24 Chicago vs. Washington Chicago Hutchinson Stockdle 17-5 " 24 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis St. Louis Johnson A.Clarkson 21-1 " 25 New York vs. Louisville Louisville Rusie Wadsworth 15-3 " 25 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Cleveland Esper Young 14-9 " 25 Cincinnati vs. Boston Cincinnati Parrott Nichols 9-7 " 25 Cincinnati vs. Boston Cincinnati Whitrock Hodson 5-1 " 25 St. Louis vs. Philadelphia St. Louis Hawley Figgemeir 14-7 " 25 Pittsburgh vs. Brooklyn Pittsburgh Jordan Kennedy 10-7 " 26 New York vs. Louisville Louisville Meekin Inks 9-5 " 26 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Cleveland Hemming Cuppy 7-6 " 26 Pittsburgh vs. Brooklyn Pittsburgh Colcolo'h Kennedy 9-8 " 26 St. Louis vs. Philadelphia St. Louis Breitestein Johnson 12-6 " 27 New York vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Clark Fischer 11-4 " 27 Boston vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Stivetts Ehret 8-1 " 27 Cleveland vs. Philadelphia Cleveland Young Weyhing 26-4 " 28 New York vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati German Whitrock 9-8 " 28 Pittsburgh vs. Boston Pittsburgh Gumbert Nichols 15-9 " 28 Cleveland vs. Philadelphia Cleveland Wallace Carsey 8-6 " 29 Cincinnati vs. New York Cincinnati Parrott Meekin 7-6 " 29 St. Louis vs. Washington St. Louis Hawley Anderson 6-4 " 29 Chicago vs. Baltimore Chicago Hutchinson Gleason 5-4 " 29 Cleveland vs. Philadelphia Cleveland Sullivan Taylor 11-3 " 29 Boston vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Hodson Menafee 6-5 " 29 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Louisville Stein Knell 11-4 " 30 Baltimore vs. Chicago Chicago Esper Terry 20-9 " 30 Louisville vs. Brooklyn Louisville Wadsworth Daub 10-8 " 30 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Louisville Stein Inks 12-4 " 30 St. Louis vs. Washington St. Louis Br'tenst'n Mullarky 14-2 " 30 St. Louis vs. Washington St. Louis Hawley Boyd 10-4 " 30 Cleveland vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Cuppy Dwyer 16-16
[Footnote 1: Protested.] [Footnote 2: Forfeited.] —————————————————————————————————————-
THE PITCHING OF 1894.
The pitching of 1894 in the National League arena was in advance of that of 1893, but it has yet to reach the point of perfect work in the box. Somehow or other, managers of teams cannot get it out of their heads that great speed is the principal factor of success in pitching, when the fact is that speed is but an aid to success, secondary in value to that of strategic skill in delivering the ball to the bat.
The experience of the past season in connection with the limit of speed in pitching presents some valuable suggestions which team managers will do well to bear in mind this year. Some years ago, the swift pitching—which had then about reached the highest point of speed—proved to be so costly in its wear and fear upon the catchers that clubs had to engage a corps of reserve catchers, in order to go through a season's campaign with any degree of success. Afterward, however, the introduction of the protective "mitts" led to some relief being afforded the catchers who had been called upon to face the swift pitching of the "cyclone" pitchers of the period. The seasons of 1893 and 1894 were marked by some exhibitions of swift pitching unequaled in the annals of the game, and yet it was not effective in placing the team which held the cyclone pitchers in the lead. If the speed of the ball is too great for catchers to handle, even with the protection the breast pads, masks and the padded gloves of the period afford, why then it is worse than useless. It was skilful, strategic pitching which helped to win the pennant in 1894, and not "cyclone" pitching. Speed is all very well as an important accessory, but without the best of catching to support it, and thorough command of the ball to give it full effect, it is more costly than otherwise.
The Pitching Percentages for 1894.
THE CHAMPION BALTIMORE CLUB'S RECORD.
The complete record of the pitching percentages of victories pitched in, shows that Baltimore's full season's team of pitchers had a general percentage of victories pitched in of .695 by the eight pitchers who occupied the box during the season's campaign. This record excelled the percentage figures of New York's team of five pitchers by 31 points, and that of Boston's seven pitchers by 66 points, the respective percentage figures being, .695, .664 and .629. These figures show the relative strength of the three battery teams, as far as the record of percentage can show them. A better criterion of pitching skill would be, of course, at command, were the scoring rules giving the data of runs earned off the pitching revised properly; but as they were not in 1894, we have to take the next best data at command, that being the percentage of victories pitched in. Taking the records of the first three pitchers named in the Baltimore "battery" team record, as a whole, we do not hesitate to award to McMahon the position of leading pitcher of the club for 1894. Brown led McMahon in percentage of victories against the five Eastern teams, but the former was last on the list against the six Western teams, McMahon's percentage figures against the Western batsmen being .812 against Brown's .500. Against the Eastern teams Brown's figures were .750 to McMahon's .706. But McMahon pitched in 17 games against the Eastern batsmen, to Brown's 4 games only, and that fact counts to McMahon's advantage. Esper stood second in percentage figures against the Western batsmen with the percentage of .889 in 9 games to McMahon's .812 in 16 games. Gleason stood third against the Eastern teams with .625 to McMahon's .706; but against the West, Gleason was fourth, with the percentage of .769 to McMahon's .812. Hawke did service against the West with .688 to .556 against the East. Inks and Mullane stood even at .667 against the West, but Inks led Mullane by .511 to .500 against the East, Horner only pitched in one game. Here is a full record of the eight pitchers of the Baltimore team of 1894, showing what each pitcher did against the Eastern and Western batsmen separately, in victories and defeats against each club, and in percentage of victories pitched in against the batsmen of each section. It is a valuable record, if only in its showing what each pitcher did in the way of victories, against each club of each division.
THE BALTIMORE CLUB'S RECORD. —————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P h i W P C L l a C i i o W N a B s l t S n u o e d r h P e t C t c i P BALTIMORE n w B e o i e v s h . i s e / o l o n T r e b i L n v T r vs. L Y s p k g o c l u c o n i o c o o t h l t t e a r a u a l t e s r o i y o a n n g g i t l a n Pitchers t k n a n n l t Pitchers d h o s i e l t —————————————————————————————————————— Brown W 0 0 1 1 1 3 .750 Hemming 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 1.000 L 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McMahon W 2 3 2 2 3 12 .706 Esper 3 1 1 2 0 1 8 .889 L 3 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Gleason W 1 0 1 2 1 5 .625 McMahon 2 0 2 3 3 3 13 .811 L 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Inks W 1 0 1 0 2 4 .571 Gleason 1 2 2 3 0 2 10 .769 L 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 Hawke W 0 1 0 1 3 5 .556 Hawke 1 1 3 2 2 2 11 .688 L 2 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 Mullane W 2 0 1 1 1 5 .500 Inks 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 .667 L 0 3 1 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Esper W 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 Mullane 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 .667 L 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Horner W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Brown 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .500 L 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 —————————————————————————————————————-
It will be seen by the above table that, while Brown did not pitch in a single victory against the two clubs standing next to Baltimore in the race, McMahon pitched in five victories; and yet Brown's percentage figures exceeded McMahon's by .750 to .706 against the five clubs as a whole, owing to McMahon's pitching in five defeats, against Brown's single defeats against the New York and Boston batsmen. Hemming's record is A No. 1, as far as he pitched, but he did not pitch in a single game against the Eastern teams, to the extent of a full record of innings pitched in.
Here is the record for the whole season, showing the total percentage:
THE BALTIMORE PITCHERS' FULL RECORD. —————————————————————————————- Per cent. of Pitchers. Victories. Defeats. Games Pitched. Victories. —————————————————————————————- Hemming 5 0 5 1.000 Esper 9 2 11 .818 McMahon 25 8 33 .758 Gleason 15 6 21 .714 Brown 4 2 6 .667 Hawke 16 9 25 .640 Inks 8 5 13 .615 Mullane 7 6 13 .538 Horner 0 1 1 .000 —————————————————————————————-
These tables include all victories and defeats of the season, whether counted or thrown out. It will be seen that only three pitchers pitched in a majority of the games played.
THE NEW YORK CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.
The New York club, in 1894, went through the season's campaign with the fewest pitchers in their team of any of the twelve clubs. Moreover, their "battery" teams of the season, as a whole, surpassed those of any of the club's previous batteries since the club was organized. Led by Meekin and Farrell—the champion "battery" of 1894—followed by pitchers Rusie, Westervelt, German and Clarke, with catchers Wilson and Doyle, the club presented battery strength sufficient to have carried the team to the goal, but for sundry drawbacks they met with during the early part of the championship campaign, especially during April and May. And handicapped as they were, they managed to close the season in second place, after brilliant rallying work during the last three months of the campaign, when their pitchers were well backed up by better team-work than they had at command up to July.
In giving the record of the work done by the club pitchers, we have deemed it essential to divide the tables up into sections, showing the work done in the box against both the Eastern and Western teams separately, as well as the table showing the aggregate figures of the individual percentages of victories pitched in. Thus it will be seen in the appended table, that while Meekin's pitching was more successful against the batsmen of the Eastern teams, Rusie excelled Meekin in downing the batsmen of the Western teams, by a percentage of victories of .889 against .778 for Meekin. But it should be remembered that in pitching against the batsmen of the three leading teams in the race opposed to them, Meekin pitched in 7 victories out of 11 games, while Rusie only pitched in 6 victories out of 14 games. Against the three most successful of the Western teams, too, Meekin pitched in 13 victories against Rusie's 12. Taking the season's figures as a whole, Meekin led Rusie by the percentage figures of .783 to .735, quite a difference in favor of Meekin. German led Westervelt against the Eastern teams, but the latter led against the Western batsmen, and also had the best percentage figures, in the aggregate of the season, by .498 to German's .471; Clark being in the last ditch in all three tables. Westervelt was a new man in the field compared to German, but he is very likely to excel his last year's record in 1895. The best individual records in victories pitched in by the two leaders, were Rusie's 6 to 0 against Louisville, and Meekin's 3 to 0 against Baltimore. German's best was 2 to 0 against Washington, and Westervelt's was 1 to 0 against Baltimore; Clarke's best being 1 to 0 against Philadelphia.
Here are the records of the pitchers of the team against the five Eastern and the six Western teams for 1894:
THE SECTIONAL RECORDS. —————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P h i W P C L B l a C i i o W a a B s l t S n u o l d r h P e t C t c i P NEW YORK n t B e o i e v s h . i s e / i o l o n T r e b i L n v T r vs. L m s p k g o c l u c o n i o c o o t h l t t e a r a u a l t e s r o i y o a n n g g i t l a n Pitchers t e n a n n l t Pitchers d h o s i e l t —————————————————————————————————————-
Meekin W 3 3 1 3 4 14 .778 Russie 4 4 4 4 2 6 24 .889 L 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 Rusie W 2 2 2 3 3 12 .545 Meekin 4 4 5 2 2 5 22 .783 L 2 3 3 1 1 10 1 0 1 1 3 0 6 German W 1 0 1 0 2 4 .500 Westervelt 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 .571 L 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 Westervelt W 0 1 0 1 1 3 .333 German 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 .471 L 2 1 2 1 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Clarke W 0 0 1 0 0 1 .333 Clarke 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .333 L 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE SUMMARY.
The summary giving the full totals of the season's record entire is appended:
—————————————————————————————— Games Per cent. of PITCHERS Victories Defeats Pitched Victories —————————————————————————————— Meekin 36 10 46 .783 Rusie 36 13 49 .735 Westervelt 7 9 16 .498 German 8 9 17 .471 Clarke 2 4 6 .333 ——————————————————————————————
THE BOSTON CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.
While the Boston team of 1893 went through the season of that year with virtually but four pitchers to do their box work—Quarles and Coyle pitching in but three games in 1893—the batteries of the club for 1894 included seven pitchers, two of the seven each pitching in but single games, Nichols, Stivetts and Staley doing the brunt of the work of the past season. Nichols did his best work against the five Eastern teams, he being most effective against Philadelphia and Brooklyn, neither of which clubs won a game with him in the box against them. He also took both Cleveland and Louisville into camp without their being able to win a single game off his pitching, the only team to strike even figures in games against his pitching being the Cincinnatis—3 to 3, Baltimore winning 2 out of 3 with Nichols opposed to them, and New York 2 out of 5, St. Louis also getting the same figures. Beyond question, Nichols led the Boston pitching record of 1894, he ranking in strategic skill with the best in the League. Stivetts excelled even Nichols against the Western batsmen by a percentage of .763 to Nichols' .692; but against the stronger Eastern teams Nichols led Stivetts by the percentage figures of .756 to .417, an advantage more than off-setting the Western figures of the two pitchers. Lovett and Hodson both excelled Stivetts against the Eastern teams, by .714 and .500, respectively, against Stivetts' .417; but against the Western teams, Stivetts led by .763 to Hodson's .600 and Lovett's .500. Staley was very ineffective against the batsmen of both sections. Lampe pitched in but one game, and that one a defeat by Pittsburgh; Stephens pitching, too, in but one game but it was a victory over Washington. Here are the sectional records for the season, together with the column giving the totals of the season:
THE SECTIONAL RECORDS. —————————————————————————————————————— EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a B s l t S n u n d o l e d r h P e t C t c i P d P BOSTON n t w e o i e v s h . i s e e / i l o n T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y p k g o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o h l t t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r i y o a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k a n n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————— Stephens W 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nichols W 1 3 4 4 3 15 .756 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 .692 33 .717 L 2 2 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 2 3 0 8 12 Stivetts W 4 1 0 1 2 8 .471 3 3 3 2 2 4 18 .763 26 .650 L 1 1 3 3 1 9 2 0 1 2 0 0 5 14 Lovett W 1 1 1 1 1 5 .714 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 .500 7 .636 L 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 Hodson W 0 0 1 0 0 1 .500 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 .600 4 .571 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 Staley W 2 1 0 0 2 5 .385 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 .371 13 .481 L 1 2 3 1 1 8 1 1 2 0 0 2 6 14 Lampe W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .006 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE PHILADELPHIA CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.
Under the Philadelphia club's management of 1893 but three pitchers were in the box in over 20 games each; and but two others in 10 games and over, seven pitchers being employed during that season. In 1894, the blunder was committed of experimenting with no less than thirteen pitchers with the result of finding it difficult to reach fourth place at the end of the race; while the club, after being in second place in April, fell down to the second division in July. But for this error of judgment, the team might have ended among the three leaders. Of those who pitched in over 10 games, Taylor took a decided lead by a total percentage of .706 to Weyhing's .548 and Carsey's .533. Of those who pitched in less than 10 games and over 5, Harper led with .667 to Haddock's .571. None of the other pitchers reached average figures—.500—except Jones, who only pitched in one game, which he won against St. Louis, while four of the thirteen did not pitch in a single victory. Experimenting with thirteen pitchers was a costly mistake in the management, and should not be repeated. It is bad enough to try too many changes in the in and out field teams, but worse in battery-team-experiments of this kind. Harper led in percentage of victories with .800 against the Eastern club batsmen, while Taylor led against those of the West with .728. The failures of the season were Fanning, Callahan, Johnson, Turner, Burns, Figgemeir and Lukens, the former being the only pitcher of the seven who pitched in a single victory against the Eastern batsmen.
Here is the record in full:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. G G r W P C L r a B a C i i o a n W a N B s l t S n u n d o l e r h P e t C t c i P d P PHILADELPHIA n t w B o i e v s h . i s e e / i o o n T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s k g o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o t l t t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r o y o a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n n n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————-
Jones W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor W 3 2 2 0 3 10 .625 4 2 2 0 3 3 14 .778 24 .706 L 0 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 10 Harper W 0 1 2 1 0 4 .800 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 .500 6 .667 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 Haddock W 0 1 1 1 0 3 .750 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .333 4 .571 L 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 Weyhing W 0 2 0 3 3 8 .615 0 2 1 1 2 3 9 .500 17 .548 L 2 0 2 0 1 5 3 1 1 2 2 0 9 14 Carsey W 1 1 1 2 2 7 .467 0 2 2 1 2 2 9 .600 16 .533 L 1 2 3 1 1 8 2 1 1 0 0 2 6 14 Callahan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 .667 2 .400 L 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Fanning W 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 .250 L 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 Johnson W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .250 1 .250 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 Turner W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Burns W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1 Figgemeir W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lukens W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 [Footnote *: Should add up to 0. [Proofreader]] —————————————————————————————————————-
THE BROOKLYN CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.
The Brooklyn club experimented with nine pitchers in 1894, of which but three were able to exceed the average in percentage of victories. Of the three, Stein took the lead with the total percentage figures of .650 against Kennedy's .545, Daub being third with but .406 to his credit, all the others pitching in less than 10 games. No less than four of the nine failed to pitch in a single victory. Lucid did good work in the few games he pitched in, his victory over Boston being noteworthy. But he pitched in as many defeats against the Western teams as he did in victories. Four of the nine were worthless for skilful, strategic pitching.
Here is the club's total record in full:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a s l t S n u n d o l e d h P e t C t c i P d P BROOKLYN n t w B e i e v s h . i s e e / i o l n T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p g o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o t h t t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r o i o a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————-
Stein W 3 2 2 2 3 12 .632 2 2 2 3 2 3 14 .667 26 .650 L 1 3 2 1 0 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 14 Lucid W 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 .500 4 .571 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 Kennedy W 1 3 3 1 1 9 .500 2 4 2 3 2 2 15 .577 24 .545 L 2 3 2 1 1 9 2 3 2 2 1 1 11 20 Gastright W 0 0 0 0 2 2 .500 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .333 3 .429 L 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 Daub W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .222 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 .500 10 .406 L 1 1 1 2 2 7 2 1 0 1 2 2 8 15 Underwood W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .400 L 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 G. Sharrott W 0 0 0 0 1 1 .333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 .333 L 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sommerville W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Korwan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE CLEVELAND CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.
The Cleveland club's management made as great a mistake in 1894 as that of the Philadelphia club in experimenting with too many pitchers. They tried but six pitchers in 1892, when they won the championship of the second half of the divided season of that year, and in 1893 put eight in the box. But last year they engaged no less than thirteen pitchers to experiment with, and from third place in 1893 with eight pitchers, they ended in sixth position in 1894 with thirteen. Of those who pitched in over 20 games, Cuppy led with the percentage figures of .568, Young being second with .543. Of those who pitched in over 10 games and less than 20, Sullivan led with .600, followed by John Clarkson with .533. Of those who pitched in less than 10 games, but one reached average figures in percentage, Menafee pitching in only one game, a victory over Brooklyn, and Mullane in but 3, of which 2 were victories over St. Louis and Louisville. Cuppy did fine box work against the five Western clubs opposed to him, but he was excelled by Young against the Eastern batsmen. Five of the thirteen failed to pitch in a single victory.
Here is the record in full:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a i i o a n W a N a B s t S n u n d o l e d r h P t C t c i P d P CLEVELAND n t w B e o i e s h . i s e e / i o l o n T r b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c u c o n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e r a u a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Menafee W 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.000 0 0 1 0 0 1 .000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1[*] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mullane W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 1 2 .667 2 .667 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sullivan W 0 1 1 1 2 1 6 .600 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 6 .600 L 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cuppy W 2 0 1 1 1 2 7 .368 2 3 3 2 4 14 .778 21 .568 L 2 4 3 0 1 2 12 2 0 0 2 0 4 16 Young W 1 1 1 3 2 3 11 .440 1 4 3 4 2 14 .667 25 .543 L 4 3 2 1 2 2 14 3 0 1 1 2 7 21 J. Clarkson W 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .167 1 2 2 1 1 7 .778 8 .533 L 1 0 2 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 2 7 Wallace W 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 .667 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .500 L 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Griffith W 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 .500 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 2 .500 L 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Lyster W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Whitrock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Knauss W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Fischer W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Petty W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 [Footnote *: Total should be 0. [Proofreader]] —————————————————————————————————————-
THE PITTSBURGH CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.
Of the nine pitchers employed by the Pittsburgh club in 1894 only three pitched in 20 games and over, and of this trio Killen led in percentage figures with .583, against Gumbert's .563 and Ehret's .389. The latter's blunders, outside of his actual box work, damaged him in his field support and in loss of local favor, otherwise he would have probably led in the season's record against the Eastern clubs. Gumbert led Killen by .471 to .364 in percentage figures, Killen being the most effective against the Western teams. Of those who pitched in 10 games and less than 20, Colcolough did the best work, with average percentage figures against the batsmen of both sections, with an even .500 in percentage figures against both, Menafee being second against both with .333 each. Of those who pitched in 5 games and less than 10, Nicol took the lead with the total figures of .667. Terry was a failure in Pittsburgh, but did well in Chicago. Easton was the last ditch pitcher, not winning a game. Ehret's record against Cleveland was the best of the season—not a single lost game out of the series he pitched in. Jordan won his single game.
Here is the record:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W C L r a B l a C i o a n W a N a B s l S n u n d o l e d r h P e C t c i P d P PITTSBURGH n t w B e o i e v h . i s e e / i o l o n T r e i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l c o n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a a u a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Jordan W 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nicol W 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 0 0 1 2 0 3 .600 4 .667 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 Killen W 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 .364 1 4 1 1 3 10 .769 14 .583 L 1 1 1 2 2 0 7 2 0 1 0 0 3 10 Gumbert W 1 0 1 1 1 4 8 .471 0 2 2 2 4 10 .667 18 .563 L 1 3 2 1 1 1 9 0 0 2 2 1 5 14 Colcolough W 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 .500 0 1 1 1 1 4 .500 7 .500 L 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 7 Ehret W 2 2 1 1 0 2 8 .364 7 0 1 1 1 10 .556 18 .389 L 2 2 3 3 3 1 14 0 5 2 1 0 8 22 Menafee W 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 .333 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 4 .333 L 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Terry W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Easton W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE CHICAGO CLUB'S RECORD.
The Chicago club, in 1894, placed only seven pitchers in the box, of which but three pitched in 20 games and over, and but two in not less than 10 games and not less than 20. Of the three former, Griffith led with a percentage of victories pitched in of .645 to Stratton's .643 and Hutchinson's .471, McGill being fourth with but .240. Of those who pitched in not less than 5 games, besides the above pitchers, Abbey led with .333, Terry's figures being .294, the Eastern batsmen punishing him badly. Camp pitched in but one game, and that a defeat.
Here is the club record of the pitching:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a B s l t S n u n d o l e d r h P e t t c i P d P CHICAGO n t w B e o i e v s . i s e e / i o l o n T r e b L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u o n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r u a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Griffith W 1 0 2 2 2 3 10 .625 1 3 1 3 2 10 .667 20 .645 L 1 2 1 0 1 1 6 2 1 0 1 1 5 11 Stratton W 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 .714 0 0 2 1 1 4 .571 9 .643 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 3 5 Hutchinson W 2 1 1 2 1 2 9 .409 0 2 2 1 2 7 .583 16 .471 L 3 5 2 1 2 0 13 1 2 1 1 0 5 18 Abbey W 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 .333 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .333 L 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 4 Terry W 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 .143 1 1 0 0 1 3 1.000 5 .294 L 3 3 2 1 1 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 McGill W 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 .222 0 0 1 1 2 4 .250 6 .240 L 2 1 2 1 1 0 7 4 2 2 2 2 12 19 Camp W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE ST. LOUIS CLUB'S RECORD.
The St. Louis club tried seven pitchers in 1894, and but one reached the percentage average of .500 and over, and that one was Breitenstein, who had .519; Hawley being second with .419, and A. Clarkson third with .360, Gleason making but little effort in the St. Louis box, though he did better in that of Baltimore, his percentage being but .250 in the St. Louis team. Clark, Sullivan and Mason were failures, not one of them pitching in a single victory. Here is the record:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a B s l t n u n d o l e d r h P e t C c i P d P ST. LOUIS n t w B e o i e v s h i s e e / i o l o n T r e b i n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r a a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g g t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h o i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Breitenstein W 1 2 1 4 3 2 13 .448 2 4 2 3 3 14 .609 27 .519 L 5 2 8 1 2 3 16 3 2 2 2 0 9 25 Hawley W 1 0 4 2 1 2 10 .417 1 2 2 1 2 8 .421 18 .419 L 2 3 3 3 3 0 14 1 1 3 3 3 11 25 A. Clarkson W 0 3 1 1 0 2 7 .438 0 0 1 1 0 2 .222 9 .360 L 3 2 0 0 3 1 9 3 1 1 1 1 7 16 Gleason W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 1 2 .286 2 .250 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 5 6 Clark W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sullivan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Clark W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE CINCINNATI CLUB'S RECORD.
It may be said of the Cincinnati club's management in 1894, that in the multiplicity of pitchers there is much danger, or words to that effect. Twelve pitchers were tried (including one who pitched in two innings) with a field support of no less than eleven players, exclusive of the pitchers who took part at times in both infield and outfield positions, together with four catchers, an aggregate of 27 players to occupy but nine positions in the game. Could blundering management go further? Under such circumstances is it any wonder that team-work was impossible, while cliques of disappointed players still further weakened the nine in nearly every game, the ultimate result being ninth place in the race, with the added discredit of being beaten out in the race by their old rivals, the St. Louis "Browns." But three of the twelve pitchers took part in 20 games and over, and but one in 10 games and less than 20, and three out of the twelve failed to win a single game. Parrott did the most effective work against the Eastern batsmen, and he and Dwyer were tied against the Western batsmen, but two of the twelve pitching in more victories than defeats. The experience of the Cincinnati "battery" teams should teach managers a lesson for 1895 in indulging in experiments with too many pitchers.
Here is the record:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P L r a B l a C i o a n W a N a B s l t S u n d o l e d r h P e t C t i P d P CINCINNATI n t w B e o i e v s h . s e e / i o l o n T r e b i L v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c o i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r a u l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g g i l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h o s e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Tannehill W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 1 1 .500 1 .500 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Dwyer W 1 3 1 0 1 2 8 .400 1 1 3 3 2 10 .588 18 .486 L 4 1 1 2 2 2 12 0 2 2 0 3 7 19 Parrott W 1 2 1 2 2 2 9 .500 2 2 1 2 2 9 .474 18 .486 L 3 1 3 0 1 1 9 2 2 2 2 2 10 19 Chamberlain W 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 .500 0 1 1 1 2 5 .455 10 .476 L 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 1 0 6 11 Cross W 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1.000 0 1 1 0 0 2 .333 3 .429 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 4 4 Whitrock W 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 .375 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 3 .375 L 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Fournier W 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 .250 L 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Fischer W 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .100 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 2 .167 L 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 Blank W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Flynn W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1[*] Pfann W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1
[Footnote *: Grand Total should be 2. [Proofreader]] —————————————————————————————————————-
THE WASHINGTON CLUB'S RECORD.
The Washington club was weakened in the same manner as the Cincinnati club, by experimenting with too many pitchers, they using a round dozen in the box during their campaign in 1894. Of the twelve, but one exceeded the percentage average of .500. Of those who pitched in 20 games and over there were but two, Maul leading with .423, and Mercer following with .410. Of those who pitched in 10 games and under 20, Esper led Stockdale and Petty, by .400 to .357 and .273, respectively. Sullivan was a bad failure, as he only pitched in 2 victories out of 12 games. No less than five of the twelve pitchers failed to pitch in a single victory, not even against the Western teams. Under such circumstances the wonder is that Washington escaped the last ditch. Here is the record:
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i P C L r a B l C i i o a n W a N a B l t S n u n d o l e d r P e t C t c i P d P WASHINGTON n t w B e o e v s h . i s e e / i o l o T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o t h l t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r o i y a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Mullarsky W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 .667 2 .667 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Maul W 1 0 1 1 1 4 .267 1 1 1 0 2 2 7 .636 11 .423 L 2 3 3 2 1 11 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 15 Mercer W 0 0 2 2 1 5 .294 0 3 1 2 1 4 11 .500 16 .410 L 4 3 1 0 4 12 4 2 1 1 2 1 11 23 Esper W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .400 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 .400 6 .400 L 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 1 6 9 Stockdale W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 .625 5 .357 L 2 2 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 9 Petty W 0 1 0 0 0 1 .125 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 .667 3 .273 L 3 1 1 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 Sullivan W 0 1 0 0 0 1 .167 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .167 2 .167 L 0 1 1 2 1 5 0 1 2 0 1 1 5 10 Wynne W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Anderson W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 Stephens W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Boyd W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 Haddock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 4 —————————————————————————————————————-
THE LOUISVILLE CLUB'S RECORD.
The Louisville club had nine pitchers in position during 1894, of which but four pitched in 20 games and over, and but one in 10 games and less than 20, Knell pitching in less than 20 games, with the percentage of .241, and Stratton in less than 10, with .143, the latter doing far better afterwards in the Chicago team. Hemming's .355 was the best record, Menafee being second with .348, both pitching in over twenty games.
Hemming's percentage in the Louisville team was but .355, which, compared with his record of 1.000 in the Baltimore team, made his total percentage .615, showing quite a difference between his support in the Louisvilles and that in the Baltimores.
Hemming, Menafee and Inks were the most successful against the strong teams of the Eastern division. Whitrock, Sullivan and Kilroy were unsuccessful opponents. Here is the record:
————————————————————————————————————— EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C r a B l a C i i a n W a N a B s l t S n n d o l e d r h P e t C t c P d P LOUISVILLE n t w B e o i e v s h . i e e / i o l o n T r e b i L n T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c o n o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r a u a t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g g i t a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h o s i l t l t ————————————————————————————————————— Hemming W 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 .250 0 2 2 3 0 7 .429 11 .355 L 2 4 1 2 1 2 12 3 1 2 0 2 8 20 Menafee W 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 .286 3 1 0 1 1 6 .375 8 .348 L 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 4 1 2 2 10 15 Inks W 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .250 L 1 1 1 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Knell W 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 .190 0 0 0 1 2 3 .375 7 .241 L 3 4 4 1 3 2 17 1 1 2 1 0 5 22 Wadsworth W 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 .200 0 0 0 1 0 1 .167 4 .190 L 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 1 5 17 Stratton W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 0 1 .167 1 .143 L 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 4 6 Whitrock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Sullivan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Kilroy W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 5 —————————————————————————————————————
Interesting Pitching Records.
No pitching records under the scoring rules of 1894 admitted of any data being made up from which a true criterion of the skill of the pitchers could be arrived at; nor can there be until the rules give the figures of "innings pitched in" and base hits made off each inning each pitcher pitched in. There is scarcely a game in which two pitchers do not enter the box to pitch, at least in one or two innings; but the scoring rules do not give the figures of innings pitched in, or how many base hits were made off each pitcher, and the result is that the total base hits scored in the game cannot be divided up between the pitchers correctly. A pitcher goes into the box at the outset of the game, and in one or two innings he is badly punished. Then a substitute follows him, and in the succeeding innings not a third of the base hits made off the first pitcher are recorded against the substitute, and yet not a record to show this is to be had off the data the scoring rules admit of. Here is the pitching score which should be used in the summary of each game:
[Copy of Yale-Princeton score of June 16, 1894.]
PITCHING SCORE. ————————————————————————————- CARTER. BRADLEY. ALTMAN. Innings pitched in by 9 6 2 Base hits off 9 5 7 Runs earned off 3 2 3 Bases on balls by 4 2 1 Wild pitches by 0 1 1 Hit batsmen by 0 1 1 Struck out by 8 3 0 ————————————————————————————-
Umpire—Emslie. Time of game—2 hours 5 minutes.
Not an official record, giving the data of work done in the box by the League pitchers, furnishes any correct figures by which to judge the good or bad work done in the box each season. We give below a series of records which give a somewhat better idea of each pitcher's box work than the official averages can give under the pitching rules in vogue up to 1895. The first table gives a full, but not complete, record of the League pitching of 1894 by those pitchers whose percentage of victories pitched in are not less than .500. Those whose record was under .500 and not less than .400 included the following: Inks, .478; Stratton, .476; German, .471; Maul, .470; Hutchinson, .467; Parrott, .459; Ehret, .436; Daub, .423; Mercer, .421; Hawley, .413, and Westervelt, .412. Of those whose percentages were under .400 and not less than .300 were the following: Stockdale, .375; Menafee, .351; Sullivan, .348; J. Clarkson, .308. These were followed by McGill, .291; Terry, 278; Knell, .200, and Wadsworth, .190. The official pitching averages, from which these figures are taken, give no record of the pitchers who pitched in less than 15 games during 1894, and those who pitched in 10 games and less than 15 included pitchers having better percentages than some of those recorded above.
Here is a record taken from the figures of the official tables, which presents data from which a pretty fair estimate of a pitcher's ability can be arrived at; though it is, of course, not a really correct criterion of his box work, as it does not contain the record of the runs earned off his pitching solely by base hits, which cannot be obtained under the existing scoring rules:
——————————————————————————————————- P B e a r s c e e G n h a t i m t B S e o s a a s f s c S o e r t R P V P f s S i o u i i i f t f l n t c t o r i e s c t c P n u c n F A B A h o h i c e S i v a v e r e t B k B c e e t e d i d c a H a o l r t r e h l O i s r d a i a i s I i l u t e e i g n g n n n s t s s d n e g e PITCHERS. CLUBS. . . g . . . . . g . . ——————————————————————————————————- Meekin New York 47 .790 253 147 127 1 4 26 .798 .281 McMahon Baltimore 34 .735 269 109 55 8 1 17 .869 .286 Rusie New York 49 .734 253 189 204 2 4 20 .867 .275 Taylor Philadelphia 33 .719 381 85 79 0 3 21 .796 .331 Nichols Boston 45 .711 291 108 98 2 1 40 .856 .282 Stivetts Boston 39 .692 306 100 73 3 4 56 .813 .336 Hawke Baltimore 23 .652 311 58 50 5 2 12 .887 .301 Stein Brooklyn 42 .619 280 162 72 4 3 31 .785 .260 Gumbert Pittsburgh 31 .600 320 73 60 1 1 18 .909 .303 Gleason Baltimore 29 .586 312 59 39 4 1 24 .841 .342 Killen Pittsburgh 24 .583 303 83 57 1 1 14 .909 .256 Cuppy Cleveland 37 .583 298 119 63 1 4 28 .916 .253 Carsey Philadelphia 31 .580 314 95 40 1 3 31 .831 .277 Breitenstein St. Louis 49 .551 280 162 138 9 3 27 .902 .229 Weyhing Philadelphia 33 .545 324 101 79 7 1 9 .845 .168 Kennedy Brooklyn 42 .545 302 134 101 0 5 22 .771 .300 Colcolough Pittsburgh 15 .533 354 59 19 1 1 19 .844 .214 Young Cleveland 47 .532 293 100 100 0 4 24 .902 .213 Chamberlain Cincinnati 19 .526 309 78 57 3 1 10 .729 .304 Staley Boston 25 .520 344 55 29 2 0 12 .744 .238 Esper Baltimore 26 .500 339 59 36 0 0 16 .929 .239 Dwyer Cincinnati 39 .500 317 97 49 0 0 32 .902 .269 Hemming Baltimore 40 .500 295 140 75 0 2 23 .893 .256 ——————————————————————————————————-
Here are the records, showing the batting and fielding averages of the nine pitchers who excelled in each record:
——————————————————————————————————- F A B A i v a v G e e G t e a l r a t r m d a m i a e i g e n g s n e s g e PITCHERS CLUBS . g . PITCHERS CLUBS . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1. Stratton Chicago 21 .931 1. Stratton Chicago 33 .350 2. Esper Baltimore 26 .929 2. Nicol Louisville 28 .348 3. Cuppy Cleveland 37 .916 3. Mullane Cleveland 18 .343 4. Gumbert Pittsburgh 31 .909 4. Gleason Baltimore 31 .341 5. Killen Pittsburgh 24 .909 5. Inks Baltimore 24 .337 6. Menafee Pittsburgh 37 .904 6. Stivetts Boston 57 .336 7. Dwyer Cincinnati 39 .902 7. Taylor Philadelphia 34 .331 8. Young Cleveland 47 .902 8. Parrott Cincinnati 59 .329 9. Breitenstein St. Louis 49 .902 9. Terry Chicago 25 .325 ——————————————————————————————————-
According to the above figures Stratton was the best fielding pitcher, and Breitenstein the poorest; Stratton also excelling in base hit averages, while in that record Terry was the tail-ender. The nine pitchers who excelled in total stolen bases were as follows:
——————————————————————————————————- PITCHERS. CLUBS. Games. Stolen Bases. ——————————————————————————————————- 1. Parrott Cincinnati 59 5 2. Stivetts Boston 57 4 3. Terry Chicago 25 3 4. Stratton Chicago 33 3 5. Taylor Philadelphia 34 3 6. Mullane Cleveland 18 2 7. Nicol Louisville 28 2 8. Inks Baltimore 24 1 9. Gleason Baltimore 31 1 ——————————————————————————————————-
In the foregoing two tables pitchers are included who did not reach a percentage of victories pitched in of .500; the list of these including Inks, Stratton, German, Hutchinson, Mullane, Parrott, Maul, Ehret, Daub, Mercer, Hawley and Westervelt, whose percentage figures were less than .500 and not lower than .400. Of those whose percentage figures did not reach .400 and were not lower than .300, were Stockdale, Menafee, Sullivan and A. Clarkson; while those who were less than .300 and not lower than .200, were McGill, Terry and Knell; Wadsworth being the tail-ender in percentage figures with .190.
The above tables present quite an interesting pitching problem, the puzzle being to find out which of the above pitchers did the best work in the box in every respect, not only in pitching, but by his batting, fielding and base running. In percentage of victories pitched in, Meekin took the lead. In the number of batsmen struck out, Rusie excelled. In fewest bases on balls, Staley had the lowest figures. In base hit averages, Stivetts led; while in total sacrifice hits, Breitenstein bore off the palm. In total runs scored, Stivetts had the largest total. In stolen bases, Kennedy was the most successful, and yet he only stole 5 in 42 games.
Now the problem is, Which pitcher did the best average work in his position? and we leave that for our readers to solve.
It is alleged that the reason pitchers do so little in stealing bases is that they are too fatigued in their pitching in each inning to do much in the active work of base running, both duties trying a player's nerves considerably. For this reason it would be a good plan, in the order of batting, to have a sure hitter follow each pitcher, so as to help bat him round.
Hints to the Pitchers of 1895.
We are glad to record the fact that scientific pitching is advancing in the League arena. Its progress, hitherto, has been slow and only step by step, but it is making headway, and during 1894 the science of strategic pitching made greater progress than ever before. The effective blow given to "cyclone" pitching by the new pitching rules, which went into effect in 1893, while it did not materially affect the strategic class of pitchers—some of whom the new rules actually benefited—obliged the class of pitchers who depend solely upon their dangerous speed for success, to adopt strategic tactics to a more or less extent; and this is why a few of the old "cyclone" pitchers—as they are called—succeeded better than they anticipated under the change made in the rules in 1893, which had placed them farther from the batsman than in 1892.
It may be said, in connection with the pitching of 1894, that one thing noticeable in the "box" work of that season was that the brainy class of men in the position began to pay more attention to the advice of the theorists of the game than before; and thereby they learned to realize the fact that strategic skill, and that equally important attribute, thorough control of temper, together with the avoidance of the senseless kicking habit in vogue, had more to do with success in their position than they had previously been aware. Those of the pitching fraternity who read up on the subject of skill in pitching, were told that the primary elements of strategic work in the "box" included: "First, to deceive the eye of the batsman in regard to the character of the delivery of the ball, as to its being fast or slow. Second, to deceive his judgment in reference to the direction of the ball when pitched to him, as to its being high or low, or where he wants it. Third, to watch the batsman closely so as to know just when he is temporarily 'out of form' for making a good hit; and Fourth, to tempt him with a ball which will be likely to go high from his bat to the outfield and be caught."
Then again they were told that "another very effective point in strategic pitching, is a thoroughly disguised change of pace in delivery. This is difficult of attainment, and as a general rule it can only be played with effect on the careless class of batsmen. Let it be borne in mind that the pitcher who cannot control his temper is as unfit for his position as is a quick-tempered billiard player to excel as a winner in professional contests. Quick temper is the mortal foe of cool judgment, and it plays the mischief with that nervy condition so necessary in the development of skilful strategy. The pitcher must of necessity be subject to annoyances well calculated to try a man's temper, especially when his best efforts in pitching are rendered useless by the blunders of incompetent fielders, but under such trying circumstances his triumph is all the greater if he can pluck victory out of the fire of such opposition, by the thorough control of his temper." This is something only a minority of League pitchers did in 1894.
SUMMARY RECORD.
The leading pitcher of each of the twelve clubs against the six clubs of each section, in percentage of victories pitched in, by those who occupied the box in 10 games and over, is given in the following table:
——————————————————————————————————- BALTIMORE. AGAINST THE EASTERN CLUBS. AGAINST THE WESTERN CLUBS Percent. of Percent. of Pitchers. Victories. Pitchers. Victories ——————————————————————————————————-
McMahon .706 McMahon .811
NEW YORK. Meelin .778 Rusie .889
BOSTON. Nichols .756 Stivetts .763
PHILADELPHIA. Taylor .625 Taylor .778
BROOKLYN. Stein .692 Stein .650
CLEVELAND. Sullivan .600 Cuppy .778
PITTSBURGH. Gumbert .471 Killen .769
CHICAGO. Griffith .625 Griffith .667
ST. LOUIS. Breitenstein .448 Breitenstein .609
CINCINNATI. Parrott .500 Dwyer .588
WASHINGTON. Mercer .294 Maul .636
LOUISVILLE. Hemming .250 Hemming .429 ——————————————————————————————————-
It will be seen that Rusie leads all the pitchers against the Western teams and Meekin all against the Eastern teams, Rusie having the highest individual percentage of victories against a single section.
There can be no really reliable criterion of a pitcher's skill, as judged by the data of his averages, until the figures of runs earned off the pitching solely by base hits, and not by base hits and stolen bases, and the errors they lead to combined, as is the case under the defective scoring rules in existence in 1894. To call a run scored by a combination of base hits and stolen bases is unjust to the pitcher, while judging his pitching by the percentage of victories pitched is only less faulty; but the latter is the better criterion of skill than that of earned runs, as calculated on the basis of the rules of 1894.
THE OFFICIAL AVERAGES FOR 1894.
The official averages for 1894, as prepared by Secretary Young, of the National League, from data furnished him under the regulation scoring rules of each year, have always been more or less defective as far as affording a reliable criterion of play in each department of the game was concerned, and necessarily so, owing to the faulty scoring rules in existence up to 1895. The batting averages are more than useless, as they fail to show the only reliable criterion of play there is, and that is, the percentage of runners forwarded around the bases by base hits. The pitching averages are similarly useless, as they fail to give the correct data for judging the percentage of runs earned off the pitching on the basis of runs scored by base hits, and by nothing else; the figures of earned runs, under the present defective rules, including runs earned by a combination of base hits and stolen bases, together with such fielding errors as base stealing leads to, a class of errors aside from regular fielding errors. Glancing at the record of the so-called leading batsmen since 1888, we find that the data on which the averages are made out grew more defective each year up to 1893, when they were improved a little. Below will be found the several headings of the season's averages, together with the name of the so-called leading batsman of each year, during the past seven years, beginning with 1888 and ending with 1894.
SEASON OF 1888. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Anson CLUB. Chicago Games Played. 134 Times at Bat. 515 Runs Scored. 101 Ave. Per Game. 0.75 First Base Hits. 177 Percentage. .343 Total Bases. 52 Ave. Per Game. 1.88 Bases Stolen. 28 Ave. Per Game. 0.20 ———————————————
SEASON OF 1889. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Brouthers CLUB. Boston Games. 126 Per cent. of Base Hits. .373 Stolen Bases. 22 Sacrifice Hits. 31 No. of Runs. 105 ———————————————
SEASON OF 1890. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Glasscock CLUB. New York Position. S. S. Games. 124 P. c. base hits to times at bat. .336 ———————————————
SEASON OF 1891. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Hamilton CLUB. Philadelphia Games Played. 133 Runs Scored. 42 Per cent. .338 ———————————————
SEASON OF 1892. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Childs CLUB. Cleveland Games Played. 144 Times at Bat. 552 Runs Scored. 135 Base Hits. 185 Per cent. .335 Total Bases. 233 Sacrifice Hits. 14 Stolen Bases. 31 ———————————————
SEASON OF 1893. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Stenzel CLUB. Pittsburgh Games Played. 51 Times at Bat. 198 Runs Scored. 56 Base Hits. 81 Per cent. .409 Total Bases. 113 Sacrifice Hits. 12 Stolen Bases. 13 ———————————————
SEASON OF 1894. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Duffy CLUB. Boston Games Played. 124 Times at Bat. 539 Runs Scored. 160 Base Hits. 236 Per cent. .438 Total Bases. 372 Sacrifice Hits. 10 Stolen Bases. 49 ———————————————
Every record of the above tables is made up to encourage the mere record batsman, the team-worker at the bat having no show given him whatever, as there is not a figure in the averages—with the probable exception of the "sacrifice hit" column—to show his percentage of runners forwarded by his base hits, this being the sole criterion of effective batting. What is wanted is a record made up in this form:
BATSMAN. CLUB. Games. Per cent. per Game Runners Forwarded by Base Hits. Per cent. of Base Hits to Times at Bat. Per cent. of Sacrifice Hits per Game. Per cent. of Runs per Game. Per cent. of Bases Taken on Balls. Per cent. of Outs on Strikes. Per cent. of Chances Given for Catches.
The above record shows how the batsman excelled in forwarding runners by his hits, together with his percentage of base hits, sacrifice hits, runs scored, percentage of times he gave chances for outs on catches—a record which shows the batsman's weakness in batting—percentage of outs on strikes, and of the times he took his base on balls. The figures showing total bases is only of more advantage to record batsmen than to team-workers at the bat, and if left out would cause the "fungo" hitting class of batsmen to strive to do more teamwork at the bat than they do now. Another column might be added showing the percentage of runners forwarded by extra base hits.
As regards the pitching averages they are equally unreliable in affording a criterion of excellence of play in the box. How is it possible to tell how effective a pitcher is by the figures of earned runs as recorded under the scoring rules in vogue up to 1895? A batsman, for instance, gets to first base by a fly ball which dropped between two fielders running to catch the ball, a so-called base hit is scored—the hit really giving an easy chance for a catch. This is followed by two steals, sending the runner to third, and a single base hit sends him home, and by the combined play an earned run off the pitching is unjustly earned. Another instance of this kind is shown when the first batsman is given a life by a dropped fly ball; the second is given another life by a muffed ball from an infield hit, and the third man at the bat is given a life by a wild throw to first base; after which three batsmen make safe hits, and before the side is put out, three runs are scored as earned, though the side should have been put out had the pitcher's field support been up to even ordinary mark, the fact being that not a single run was really earned off the pitching, yet three earned runs are scored against the pitcher under the scoring rules "up to date." Other instances of the uselessness of the existing method of making out the League averages could be readily cited, but these amply suffice, we think.
One thing against improvement in the scoring rules is: first, the fact that the magnates have the power to revise the amendments made by the Committee on Rules. Another is the failure, as a rule, to appoint that committee so as to secure an efficient working committee. But even when this is done their good work is knocked in the head by the majority vote of the magnates at the spring meeting. The vote should be made unanimous in changing any rule favorably reported by the Committee.
Here are the complete official averages for 1894, as prepared by Secretary Young, after revision of averages published last fall:
Batting Record
OF PLAYERS WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN FIFTEEN OR MORE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES—SEASON OF 1894.
——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Duffy Boston 124 539 160 236 .438 372 10 49 Turner Philadelphia 77 347 94 147 .423 187 8 12 Thompson Philadelphia 102 458 115 185 .403 314 8 29 Delehanty Philadelphia 114 497 149 199 .400 283 5 29 Hamilton Philadelphia 131 559 196 223 .398 289 7 99 Anson Chicago 83 347 87 137 .394 188 7 17 Kelley Baltimore 129 509 167 199 .391 304 19 45 Cross Philadelphia 120 543 128 211 .388 290 16 28 Tenny Boston 24 80 21 31 .387 43 2 7 Holliday Cincinnati 122 519 125 199 .383 297 4 39 Brodie Baltimore 129 574 132 212 .369 269 24 50 Doyle New York 105 425 94 157 .369 216 4 48 Keeler Baltimore 128 593 164 218 .367 305 16 30 Griffin Brooklyn 106 405 123 148 .365 209 5 48 Childs Cleveland 117 476 144 174 .365 227 4 20 Grady Philadelphia 50 187 45 68 .363 100 2 3 Dahlen Chicago 121 508 150 184 .362 289 10 49 Ryan Chicago 108 481 133 173 .359 233 8 12 Burns Brooklyn 126 513 107 184 .358 261 9 29 Burkett Cleveland 124 518 134 185 .357 267 10 32 McKean Cleveland 130 561 115 199 .354 281 11 32 Smith Pittsburgh 125 497 129 175 .352 267 10 37 Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 523 148 184 .351 303 5 60 Earle Brooklyn and Louisville 33 114 23 40 .350 47 4 5 Stratton Chicago and Louisville 33 134 39 47 .350 77 0 8 McCarthy Boston 126 536 118 187 .349 266 9 40 Nicol Louisville 28 112 12 39 .348 53 1 2 Robinson Baltimore 106 420 71 146 .348 182 11 13 Davis New York 124 492 124 170 .345 267 9 37 ——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Brouthers Baltimore 123 528 137 182 .344 287 18 40 Joyce Washington 98 357 103 124 .344 230 5 23 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 534 122 184 .344 284 22 20 Clements Philadelphia 47 172 26 59 .343 85 3 04 Mullane Baltimore and Cleveland 18 67 3 23 .343 27 1 2 Gleason Baltimore and St. Louis 31 111 24 38 .342 55 4 1 Miller St. Louis 125 480 93 164 .341 223 8 20 Lowe Boston 133 615 585 210 .341 323 9 25 McGraw Baltimore 123 515 115 175 .340 221 14 77 Daly Brooklyn 123 494 135 167 .338 237 4 53 Inks Baltimore and Louisville 24 89 12 27 .337 30 1 1 Sullivan Washington & Philadelphia 93 374 72 126 .337 166 7 15 Connaughton Boston 38 166 38 56 .337 76 1 2 Bannon Boston 127 496 130 167 .336 257 6 42 Stivetts Boston 57 244 56 82 .336 133 3 4 Treadway Brooklyn 122 482 124 162 .336 254 12 29 Sugden Pittsburgh 39 141 24 47 .333 70 6 3 VanHaltren New York 139 531 110 177 .333 231 13 44 Jennings Baltimore 128 505 136 168 .332 246 18 36 Taylor Philadelphia 34 145 21 48 .331 63 0 3 Wilmot Chicago 135 606 137 201 .331 294 14 76 LaChance Brooklyn 65 258 47 85 .329 129 3 25 Wilson New York 45 179 37 59 .329 77 2 9 Parrott Cincinnati 59 228 50 75 .329 126 1 5 Tucker Boston 122 503 112 165 .328 212 2 19 Hallman Philadelphia 119 519 111 170 .327 207 22 27 Hassamer Washington 116 493 106 161 .326 243 10 15 Lange Chicago 112 447 87 145 .324 119 4 71 Long Boston 103 475 136 154 .324 240 8 25 Terry Chicago 25 96 19 31 .323 39 0 3 Hutchinson Chicago 34 133 28 43 .323 64 2 1 McPhee Cincinnati 128 481 113 154 .320 230 6 31 Shock Brooklyn 63 237 46 76 .320 94 8 18 O'Connor Cleveland 80 324 67 105 .320 146 4 13 Abbey Washington 129 521 95 166 .318 243 13 30 Kittredge Chicago 50 167 36 53 .317 65 5 2 Twineham St. Louis 31 127 22 40 .314 50 1 2 Connor New York and St. Louis 121 462 93 145 .313 253 6 15 Latham Cincinnati 130 532 132 167 .313 233 11 62 Hoy Cincinnati 128 506 118 158 .312 241 11 30 Hartman Pittsburgh 49 186 41 58 .311 82 8 12 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 254 51 79 .311 113 11 17 Foutz Brooklyn 73 296 41 92 .310 126 8 16 Decker Chicago 89 391 76 121 .309 177 2 22 Vaughn Cincinnati 67 275 48 85 .309 145 2 6 Selbach Washington 96 372 70 115 .309 188 3 23 Stockdale Washington 19 75 9 23 .306 25 1 2 Donovan Pittsburgh 133 575 146 176 .306 230 26 51 Reitz Baltimore 109 450 86 138 .306 226 7 18 Ely St. Louis 127 508 85 155 .305 237 13 23 O. Tebeau Cleveland 119 501 79 153 .305 200 9 27 McGuire Washington 102 427 67 130 .304 176 4 11 ——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Chamberlain Cincinnati 20 69 10 21 .304 36 3 1 Ward Washington 89 343 85 104 .303 130 5 36 Gumbert Pittsburgh 33 112 18 34 .303 52 1 1 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 573 124 173 .302 251 10 33 Irwin Chicago 130 503 85 152 .302 220 4 34 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 527 88 159 .301 217 20 20 Anderson Brooklyn 16 63 13 19 .301 29 1 7 Bonner Baltimore 27 113 26 34 .301 46 2 11 Hawke Baltimore 25 93 12 28 .301 37 5 2 German New York 19 60 8 18 .300 19 2 1 Merritt Boston and Cincinnati 66 243 38 73 .300 100 1 5 Shindle Brooklyn 117 476 96 143 .300 201 17 18 Kennedy Brooklyn 42 160 22 48 .300 61 6 5 Burke New York 138 575 124 172 .299 225 10 47 Cooley St. Louis 52 207 35 62 .299 71 6 8 Kinslow Brooklyn 61 221 38 66 .298 91 2 6 McAleer Cleveland 64 251 36 75 .298 99 5 17 Pfeffer Louisville 104 420 66 125 .297 182 15 33 Flaherty Louisville 38 149 15 44 .295 55 1 2 Dungan Louisville and Chicago 18 71 11 20 .295 23 1 3 Mercer Washington 43 163 29 48 .294 61 1 10 Nash Boston 132 510 132 150 .294 212 3 19 Canavan Cincinnati 100 362 81 106 .293 201 5 15 Lake Louisville 16 41 8 12 .292 18 0 2 Cartwright Washington 132 509 86 149 .292 238 3 35 Boyle Philadelphia 116 512 103 150 .291 203 18 22 Grimm Louisville 107 413 65 120 .290 182 8 14 Smith Louisville 39 135 27 39 .288 56 1 13 Blake Cleveland 73 300 51 86 .286 113 10 1 McMahon Baltimore 34 129 17 37 .286 46 8 1 Shugart Pittsburgh 133 533 103 152 .285 236 13 23 Knell Louisville 31 119 10 34 .285 47 1 2 Zimmer Cleveland 88 340 55 97 .285 141 2 15 Fuller New York 95 378 82 107 .283 138 0 34 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 332 47 94 .283 123 13 20 Nichols Boston 45 170 40 48 .282 64 2 1 Tiernan New York 112 429 87 121 .282 184 6 26 Farrell New York 112 404 50 114 .282 175 3 10 Meekin New York 48 174 26 49 .281 80 1 4 Ganzel Boston 65 266 52 74 .278 98 4 1 Carsey Philadelphia 32 126 31 35 .277 40 1 3 Rusie New York 49 185 20 51 .275 74 2 4 Shiebeck Pittsburgh & Washington 75 294 69 81 .275 102 1 19 Clark Louisville 76 316 55 87 .275 132 1 24 Peitz St. Louis 100 364 62 100 .274 159 7 17 Quinn St. Louis 106 411 58 113 .274 142 13 26 Denny Louisville 60 222 26 61 .274 87 6 10 Hawley St. Louis 48 161 16 44 .273 68 5 1 Reilly Philadelphia 36 132 21 37 .272 42 1 6 O'Rourke Louisville & St. Louis 80 316 60 86 .272 106 6 11 McGarr Cleveland 127 522 94 142 .272 185 5 34 Murphy New York 73 284 65 77 .271 89 2 25 ——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Ryan Boston 49 203 39 55 .271 87 1 4 Virtue Cleveland 23 85 15 23 .270 80 2 1 Clarke Baltimore 27 100 18 27 .270 40 3 1 Dwyer Cincinnati 49 171 32 46 .269 72 0 0 Schriver Chicago 94 356 56 96 .269 123 5 9 Dailey Brooklyn 65 230 39 62 .269 89 6 4 Murphy Cincinnati 76 265 42 71 .268 89 6 5 Dowd St. Louis 123 524 92 141 .267 185 9 34 McCarthy Cincinnati 40 168 29 45 .267 60 4 3 Smith Cincinnati 128 492 73 131 .266 207 3 12 G. Tebeau Washington and Cleveland 105 398 77 106 .266 147 11 34 Twitchell Louisville 51 211 28 56 .265 86 9 9 Comiskey Cincinnati 59 230 26 61 .265 73 4 9 Hogan St. Louis 29 103 11 27 .262 37 3 7 Ward New York 136 552 99 145 .262 168 20 41 Stein Brooklyn 41 142 31 37 .260 59 4 3 Mack Pittsburgh 63 229 32 59 .257 70 14 9 Killen Pittsburgh 24 82 14 21 .256 26 1 1 Hemming Louisville and Baltimore 38 152 23 39 .256 67 0 2 Richardson Louisville 116 427 50 109 .255 134 4 11 Ewing Cleveland 53 212 32 54 .255 82 2 19 Allen Philadelphia 40 154 27 39 .253 60 3 5 Cuppy Cleveland 41 134 28 34 .253 47 1 4 Buckley St. Louis & Philadelphia 67 251 24 64 .251 87 18 0 Brown Louisville 130 542 123 136 .251 213 14 74 Weaver Louisville & Pittsburgh 90 355 35 89 .250 119 12 9 Frank St. Louis 80 321 53 89 .246 130 12 12 Parrott Chicago 126 532 83 130 .244 175 9 34 Griffith Chicago 41 139 29 34 .244 44 0 6 Wadsworth Louisville 23 74 9 18 .243 25 1 0 Esper Washington and Baltimore 25 96 16 23 .239 35 0 0 Staley Boston 25 88 12 21 .238 31 2 0 Wittrock Cincinnati 18 64 8 15 .234 17 0 0 Gilbert Brooklyn and Louisville 34 133 14 31 .233 39 1 3 Maul Washington 35 120 23 28 .233 42 1 1 Radford Washington 93 330 61 77 .233 101 6 26 Breitenstein St. Louis 53 179 27 41 .229 53 9 3 McGill Chicago 23 83 11 19 .229 24 1 1 Sullivan Washington and Cleveland 26 101 10 23 .228 33 0 0 Daub Brooklyn 28 97 13 22 .226 26 4 1 Dugdale Washington 33 129 15 28 .217 38 0 6 Colcolough Pittsburgh 19 70 10 15 .214 21 1 1 Young Cleveland 48 183 24 40 .213 61 0 4 Motz Cincinnati 18 68 8 14 .205 19 0 1 Clarkson Cleveland 16 54 7 11 .204 14 4 0 Menafee Louisville & Pittsburgh 37 125 12 25 .200 31 10 4 Lutenburg Louisville 70 255 44 49 .192 66 3 10 Clarkson St. Louis 26 85 11 16 .188 16 0 1 Ehret Pittsburgh 41 133 6 23 .172 30 10 0 Weyhing Philadelphia 33 119 9 20 .168 26 7 1 Westervelt New York 18 59 9 9 .152 11 2 1 ——————————————————————————————————-
Fielding Record, 1894. ————————————
FIRST BASEMEN. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Motz Cincinnati 18 185 18 1 204 .995 2 Anson Chicago 83 748 45 9 802 .988 3 Tucker Boston 122 1114 70 19 1203 .984 4 O. Tebeau Cleveland 107 1025 47 18 1090 .983 5 Boyle Philadelphia 116 983 64 20 1067 .981 6 Vaughn Cincinnati 19 186 11 4 201 .980 Cartright Washington 132 1227 72 36 1335 .980 7 Foutz Brooklyn 73 659 36 15 710 .979 8 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 1236 82 31 1349 .977 La Chance Brooklyn 56 503 13 12 528 .977 9 Connor New York and St. Louis 120 1084 81 28 1193 .976 Decker Chicago 48 433 16 11 460 .976 10 Lutenburg Louisville 68 595 34 16 645 .975 Brouthers Baltimore 123 1180 65 31 1276 .975 11 Comiskey Cincinnati 59 558 26 16 600 .973 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St. L. 30 270 22 8 300 .973 12 Doyle New York 99 987 60 33 1080 .969 McCarthy Cincinnati 15 146 13 5 164 .969 13 G. Tebeau Washington, Cleveland 16 161 2 9 172 .948 ——————————————————————————————————-
SECOND BASEMEN. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Reitz Baltimore 100 252 344 21 627 .966 2 Quinn St. Louis 106 344 342 33 719 .954 3 McPhee Cincinnati 128 391 449 53 893 .940 4 Pfeffer Louisville 89 264 283 35 582 .939 5 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 308 462 52 822 .936 6 Hallman Philadelphia 119 314 342 47 703 .933 7 Lowe Boston 132 354 411 57 822 .930 8 Parrott Chicago 125 291 384 52 727 .928 9 Childs Cleveland 117 308 380 56 744 .924 10 Ward New York 136 332 455 67 854 .921 11 Grimm Louisville 24 59 75 12 146 .918 12 Ward Washington 79 175 237 40 452 .911 13 Bonner Baltimore 24 57 54 10 121 .909 14 Daly Brooklyn 128 320 358 74 752 .901 15 Radford Washington 21 62 60 14 136 .897 16 Miller St. Louis 18 31 49 11 91 .879 ——————————————————————————————————-
THIRD BASEMEN. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Nash Boston 132 199 271 34 504 .932 2 McGarr Cleveland 127 171 246 35 452 .922 3 Cross Philadelphia 100 177 240 40 457 .91* 4 Davis New York 124 154 251 40 445 .916 5 Dahlen Chicago 55 95 127 23 245 .906 6 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 120 158 30 308 .902 7 Peitz St. Louis 43 61 69 15 145 .896 8 McGarr Baltimore 117 130 246 44 420 .895 9 Shindle Brooklyn 117 190 232 50 472 .894 10 Reilly Philadelphia 27 35 55 12 102 .882 11 Flaherty Louisville 38 43 75 16 134 .880 12 Hartman Pittsburgh 49 65 96 23 184 .875 13 Hassamer Washington 30 64 79 21 164 .872 14 Latham Cincinnati 129 163 256 64 483 .867 15 Denny Louisville 60 84 124 32 240 .866 16 Joyce Washington 98 151 184 52 387 .865 17 Miller St. Louis 52 71 97 33 201 .835 18 Irwin Chicago 68 90 125 43 258 .833 19 Gilbert Brooklyn and Louisville 31 56 61 24 141 .829 20 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St.L. 21 30 39 15 84 .821 ——————————————————————————————————-
SHORT STOPS. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 195 300 35 530 .934 2 Jennings Baltimore 128 307 497 62 866 .928 3 Richardson Louisville 107 236 363 50 649 .923 4 Smith Cincinnati 128 234 523 72 829 .913 4 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 282 446 69 797 .913 5 McKean Cleveland 130 278 401 66 745 .911 6 Allen Philadelphia 40 93 130 23 246 .907 7 Connaughton Boston 32 60 105 18 183 .901 8 Ely St. Louis 127 279 444 82 805 .898 9 Dahlen Chicago 66 191 257 52 500 .896 10 Long Boston 99 223 371 71 665 .893 11 Sullivan Washington and Phila. 83 199 232 52 483 .892 11 Irwin Chicago 62 122 219 41 382 .892 12 Murphy New York 48 112 148 34 294 .884 13 Shiebeck Pittsburgh and Wash. 62 130 230 48 408 .882 14 Fuller New York 91 211 309 71 591 .879 15 Pfeffer Louisville 15 30 63 13 106 .877 16 Radford Washington 47 127 184 53 364 .851 17 Selbach Washington 18 52 52 23 127 .818 ——————————————————————————————————-
OUTFIELDERS ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Dungan Louisville and Chicago 18 30 3 1 34 .970 2 Griffin Brooklyn 106 298 13 12 323 .963 3 Hamilton Philadelphia 131 363 16 15 394 .961 3 Thompson Philadelphia 102 163 11 7 181 .961 4 Weaver Louisville and Pitts. 35 59 8 3 70 .957 5 McAleer Cleveland 64 173 10 9 192 .953 6 Kelley Baltimore 129 274 19 15 308 .951 7 Brodie Baltimore 129 311 11 19 341 .944 8 Shock Brooklyn 34 89 11 6 106 .943 9 Burns Brooklyn 126 212 16 14 242 .942 10 Hogan St. Louis 29 43 5 3 51 .941 11 Blake Cleveland 73 122 17 9 148 .939 11 O'Connor Cleveland 31 85 8 6 99 .939 12 Delehanty Philadelphia 85 224 21 16 261 .938 13 Smith Pittsburgh 125 271 18 20 309 .935 14 Tiernan New York 112 170 11 13 194 .933 15 Donovan Pittsburgh 133 267 24 21 312 .932 16 Dowd St. Louis 115 201 16 16 233 .931 17 Keeler Baltimore 127 220 27 19 266 .928 18 Radford Washington 22 30 8 3 41 .927 19 Ewing Cleveland 52 91 7 8 106 .924 19 Selbach Washington 76 153 7 13 173 .924 20 Duffy Boston 123 313 23 28 364 .923 21 Burke New York 138 269 16 23 308 .922 22 Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 317 22 30 369 .918 22 Canavan Cincinnati 94 191 10 18 219 .918 23 Holliday Cincinnati 121 247 26 25 298 .916 24 Brown Louisville 130 327 23 33 383 .914 24 McCarthy Cincinnati 25 46 7 5 58 .914 25 Burkett Cleveland 124 242 18 24 284 .912 26 VanHaltren New York 139 309 28 33 370 .911 26 Shugart St. Louis 119 276 23 27 326 .911 27 Abbey Washington 129 341 26 36 403 .910 27 Hassamer Washington 68 102 10 11 123 .910 28 Turner Philadelphia 77 143 7 15 165 .909 29 McCarthy Boston 124 286 30 32 348 .908 30 Smith Louisville 39 64 2 7 73 .904 30 Ryan Chicago 108 222 23 26 271 .904 31 Lange Chicago 110 278 30 33 341 .903 32 Twitchell Louisville 51 104 14 13 131 .900 33 Hoy Cincinnati 128 322 27 41 390 .895 34 Treadway Brooklyn 122 274 20 36 330 .891 35 Clark Louisville 76 166 14 23 203 .886 36 Frank St. Louis 77 159 11 23 193 .880 37 G. Tebeau Wash'n and Cleveland 87 182 8 26 216 .879 38 Murphy New York 20 32 3 5 40 .875 38 Virtue Cleveland 20 38 4 6 48 .875 39 Bannon Boston 127 243 42 41 326 .874 40 Wilmont Chicago 135 262 17 46 325 .858 41 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St.L. 18 34 2 6 42 .857 42 Decker Chicago 30 55 9 11 75 .853 43 Cooley St. Louis 38 73 1 14 88 .840 44 Nicol Louisville 26 33 3 7 43 .837 45 Anderson Brooklyn 15 21 0 6 27 .777 ——————————————————————————————————-
CATCHERS' AVERAGES. ———————————————————————————————————— P P T u A a o C P t s E s t h e G s r s B a a r a O i r e a l n c m u s o d l c e e t t r l e n s s s s s s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . ———————————————————————————————————— 1 Zimmer Cleveland 88 285 107 16 13 421 .931 2 Clements Philadelphia 47 182 38 11 7 238 .924 3 Buckley Philadelphia, St. Louis 66 249 72 18 12 351 .914 3 Robinson Baltimore 106 364 96 24 19 503 .914 4 Mack Pittsburgh 63 274 59 22 15 370 .900 5 Merritt Boston, Pitts., Cinn 61 177 72 16 13 278 .895 6 Schriver Chicago 86 294 93 34 13 434 .891 7 Grimm Louisville 75 262 104 29 16 411 .890 8 Miller St. Louis 39 138 36 12 10 196 .887 Murphy Cincinnati 74 197 69 29 5 300 .887 Farrell New York 103 470 138 41 36 685 .887 9 Kittredge Chicago 50 209 40 20 13 282 .883 10 Vaughn Cincinnati 41 155 43 19 8 225 .880 Dailey Brooklyn 58 217 62 21 17 317 .880 11 Ganzel Boston 55 188 57 24 10 279 .878 12 Sugden Pittsburgh 30 104 28 12 7 151 .874 13 Earle Brooklyn and Lousiville 31 89 42 6 13 150 .873 14 Twineham St. Louis 31 147 35 9 18 209 .870 15 O'Connor Cleveland 42 160 37 12 20 229 .860 16 McGuire Washington 102 288 116 39 28 471 .857 17 Clarke Baltimore 22 86 21 10 8 125 .856 Ryan Boston 49 166 49 18 18 251 .856 18 Peitz St. Louis 38 153 52 13 11 229 .851 19 Tenny Boston 18 55 18 11 3 87 .839 20 Wilson New York 32 119 22 20 9 170 .829 21 Weaver Louisville and Pitts. 30 88 27 11 15 141 .815 22 Kinslow Brooklyn 61 114 47 19 23 203 .793 23 Grady Philadelphia 38 101 30 21 20 172 .761 24 Dugdale Washington 30 75 38 20 10 143 .720 ————————————————————————————————————
PITCHERS' RECORD, IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER—1894.
————————————————————————————————————- Heading abbreviations used in this table: G Games Played %W Percent games won excluding tie games RS Runs scored average per game RE Runs earned, average per game %BH Percent of base hits off pitcher BoB Bases given on balls SO No. struck out %FC Percent fielding chances accepted
————————————————————————————————————— Pitcher. Club. G %W RS RE %BH BoB SO %FC ————————————————————————————————————— Breitenst'n St. Louis 49 .551 6.32 3.06 .280 162 138 .902 Colcolough Pittsburgh 15 .533 9.13 4.87 .354 59 19 .844 Cuppy Cleveland 37 .583 7.13 3.24 .298 119 63 .916 Carsey Philadelphia 31 .580 7.93 3.84 .314 95 40 .831 Clarkson St. Louis 26 .308 8.11 4.19 .318 102 42 .794 Chamberlain Cincinnati 19 .526 7.45 3.70 .309 78 57 .729 Dwyer Cincinnati 39 .500 7.3 4.13 .317 97 47 .902 Daub Brooklyn 26 .423 7.89 3.70 .306 71 33 .694 Esper Wash. and Balti. 26 .500 8.3 4.88 .339 59 36 .929 Ehret Pittsburgh 41 .436 7.05 4.17 .306 111 91 .808 Gumbert Pittsburgh 31 .600 7.23 4.87 .326 73 60 .909 Griffith Chicago 32 .656 6.46 3.59 .300 79 67 .901 German New York 17 .471 7.82 3.53 .288 48 15 .842 Gleason St.L. and Balti. 29 .586 6.00 3.45 .312 59 39 .841 Hemming Louis. and Balti. 40 .500 6.02 2.85 .295 140 75 .893 Hawke Baltimore 23 .562 7.17 4.08 .311 58 50 .887 Hutchinson Chicago 30 .467 7.47 3.33 .314 125 60 .716 Hawley St. Louis 47 .413 7.04 3.72 .303 121 117 .708 Inks Balti. and Louis. 24 .478 7.96 4.04 .337 75 37 .846 Killen Pittsburgh 24 .583 6.25 3.87 .303 83 57 .909 Knell Louisville 30 .200 8.46 3.60 .329 97 65 .693 Kennedy Brooklyn 42 .545 7.55 4.21 .302 134 101 .771 Menafee Louis. and Pitts. 37 .351 6.59 3.67 .309 85 78 .904 Mercer Washington 38 .421 7.18 4.09 .303 105 57 .852 Meekin New York 47 .790 4.91 2.38 .253 147 127 .798 Maul Washington 24 .458 8.08 4.08 .307 60 31 .785 Mullane Balt. and Cleve. 17 .470 8.17 4.17 .297 80 44 .740 McMahon Baltimore 34 .735 5.51 3.00 .269 109 55 .869 McGill Chicago 24 .291 8.12 3.83 .321 98 55 .846 Nichols Boston 46 .711 6.78 3.56 .291 108 98 .856 Parrott Cincinnati 37 .459 7.24 3.94 .307 120 61 .824 Rusie New York 49 .734 4.73 2.12 .253 189 204 .867 Stratton Louis. & Chicago 21 .476 9.43 5.24 .366 52 29 .931 Stockdale Washington 16 .375 7.60 3.60 .353 39 8 .825 Stivetts Boston 39 .692 7.49 3.43 .306 100 73 .913 Stein Brooklyn 42 .619 6.26 3.05 .280 162 72 .785 Staley Boston 25 .520 8.88 5.72 .344 55 29 .744 Sullivan Wash. and Cleve. 23 .348 8.26 3.74 .320 97 28 .714 Terry Chicago 19 .278 9.73 4.00 .334 91 43 .782 Taylor Philadelphia 33 .719 5.30 2.76 .281 85 79 .796 Weyhing Philadelphia 33 .545 6.72 3.49 .324 101 79 .845 Wadsworth Louisville 21 .190 9.38 4.66 .360 97 58 .703 Westervelt New York 18 .412 7.39 3.83 .297 62 28 .654 Young Cleveland 47 .532 5.83 3.17 .293 100 100 .902
Tie games—Cuppy, 1; Dwyer, 1; Daub, 1; Ehret, 1; Gumbert, 1; Hawley, 1; Inks, 1; Meekin, 4; Nichols, 1; Stein, 1; Terry, 1; Taylor 1; Westervelt,1. —————————————————————————————————————-
The Batting of 1894.
THE TEAM-WORK AT THE BAT.
It goes to the credit of the leading teams in the pennant race of 1894 that the first three clubs did better team-work at the bat, and more of it, than any previous trio of the kind known in the annals of the League. In fact, competent managers and captains of teams have learned in recent years, by costly experiment, that one of the most potent factors in winning pennants is the method of handling the ash known as good team-work at the bat the very essence of which is devoting all the batsmen's efforts to forwarding runners by base hits, and not by each player's going to the bat simply to build up a high record of base hits without regard to forwarding runners on bases. Suppose the first baseman in a game to take his position at the bat makes a two or three-bagger at the outset. Of course the object of the batsman who succeeds him would be to send the runner home the best way he can, either by a base hit or a sacrifice hit. In striving to do this, the very worst plan, is to try solely for a home run hit, as it only succeeds once in thirty or forty times, and not that against skilful, strategic pitching. Time and again were batsmen, last season, left on third base after opening the innings with a three-bagger, owing to the stupid work of the succeeding batsmen in trying to "line 'em out for a homer," instead of doing real team-work at the bat. Of course, good "sacrifice hitting" is part and parcel of team-work at the bat, but this kind of hitting was not done to any special extent last season by a majority of the League batsmen.
SACRIFICE HITTING.
There is one thing about the point of play in batting known, as "sacrifice hitting" which is not as thoroughly understood as it should be. A majority of batsmen seem to be of the impression that when they are called upon to forward a base runner by a "sacrifice hit," all they have to do is to go to the bat and have themselves put out, so that the base runner at first base may be able to reach second base on the play which puts the batsmen out. This is a very erroneous idea of the true intent of a sacrifice hit. No skilful batsmen ever goes to the bat purposely to hit the ball so as to have himself put out; that would be a very silly move. On the contrary, he takes his bat in hand every time, with the primary object of making a base hit if he possibly can; but in trying for this strongest point in batting, he proposes, to make the desired hit in such a way that if he fails to make the base hit he will at least hit the ball in that direction in the field which will oblige the fielders to throw him out at first base. With this object in view he will always strive for a safe hit to right field, especially by means of a hard "bounder" in that direction, so as to force the second baseman to run to right short to field the ball, in which case the runner at first base will be able to steal to second on the hit in nine cases out of ten. Another good effort for a sacrifice hit is to bunt the ball so that it may roll towards third base, out of reach of the baseman or pitcher. A third sacrifice hit is that of a long high ball to the outfield, which admits of a chance for a catch, but so far out in the field that the runner will have an opportunity to steal a base on the catch. This latter point won't work, of course, when two men are out; moreover, it should be the last point aimed at.
A great deal of bosh has been written—mostly by the admirers of "fungo" hitting—about sacrifice hitting being something that should not be in the game, just as these fungo-hitting-advocates try to write down bunt hitting—the most difficult place hit known to the game. This class of writers think that the very acme of batting skill is the home run hit, a hit which any muscular novice in batting on amateur fields can accomplish without difficulty, and where more home runs are made in a single season than in two seasons by the best managed professional teams. The effort to make home runs leads to more chances for catches by outfielders in one game than there are home runs made in fifty. The exhaustion which follows a home run hit, with its sprinting run of 120 yards at full speed, is entirely lost sight of by the class of patrons of the game who favor home runs. One season, a few years ago, the tail-end team of the League excelled all its rivals in scoring home runs, while the pennant-winning team took the honors and the prize solely on account of its excellence in team-work at the bat. The mere record of the best averages in scoring base hits in batting seems to be regarded by the majority of "cranks" in base ball as the only sound criterion of good batting. This is one of the fallacies of the game, as such a record is unreliable. The only true criterion of good batting is the record which shows the players who excel in the batting which forwards runners; and this record the existing scoring rules, up to 1895, did not admit of, the champion batsman being regarded as the one who excels in his base-hit average, without regard to the runners his base hits forwarded. For instance, one batsman in a game will make three three-baggers, and forward but a single runner by his three hits, while another batsman by a single base hit, a good "bunt" hit and a telling "sacrifice hit," will forward four runners; and yet by the existing scoring rules the record batsman carries off all the honors in the score, and the team-worker at the bat does not get the slightest credit for the effective batting he has done.
SACRIFICE HIT RECORD.
The following is the record of the players in the League teams of 1894 who led in sacrifice hits last season. The names are given in the order of bases stolen, as recorded in the official average tables made up by Mr. Young. The percentage figures would, of course, materially change the order.
———————————————————————- Sacrifice PLAYERS. CLUBS. Games. Hits. ———————————————————————- Donovan Pittsburgh 129 24 Brodie Baltimore 129 24 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 22 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 20 Ward New York 136 20 Kelley Baltimore 129 19 Buckley Philadelphia 67 18 Boyle Philadelphia 116 18 Brouthers Baltimore 123 18 Jennings Baltimore 128 18 Shindle Brooklyn 117 17 Cross Philadelphia 120 16 Keeler Baltimore 128 16 Pfeffer Louisville 104 15 Mack Pittsburgh 63 14 McGraw Baltimore 123 14 Brown Louisville 130 14 Wilmot Chicago 135 14 Shugart St. Louis 33 13 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 13 Quinn St. Louis 106 13 Ely St. Louis 127 13 Abbey Washington 129 13 Van Haltren New York 139 13 Frank St. Louis 80 12 Weaver Pittsburgh 90 12 Tredway Brooklyn 122 12 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 11 G. Tebeau Cleveland 105 11 Robinson Baltimore 106 11 Hay Cincinnati 128 11 Latham Cincinnati 130 11 McKean Cleveland 130 11 Menafee Pittsburgh 37 10 Ehret Pittsburgh 41 10 Blake Cleveland 73 10 Hassamer Washington 116 10 Dahlen Chicago 121 10 Duffy Boston 124 10 Burkett Cleveland 124 10 E. Smith Pittsburgh 125 10 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 10 Burke New York 138 10 ———————————————————————
According to the above table Pittsburgh led with a total of 146 sacrifice hits, Baltimore being next with 120, followed by Philadelphia with 52, New York 43, Cleveland 42, Brooklyn 39, St. Louis 38, Louisville 29, Chicago 24, Washington 23, Cincinnati 22 and Boston 10.
A record connected with the batting of each season is that showing the number of victories and defeats, marked by single and double figure scores. This data shows, to a considerable extent, how the pitching stands in relation to the batting, as to whether the one or the other dominates too much in the efforts of the rulemakers to equal the powers of attack and defence. If the pitching has the best of it than we have a predominance of the undesirable class of pitchers' games, in which the minority of the fielders only bear the brunt of the contest. On the other hand, if the batting rules the roost, then we have too much of the old slugging style of play, in which the outfielders are mostly brought into play, and but little chance to see skilful base running or splendid infielding is afforded. Here are some records which show what was done in 1894 in this respect:
The three leading teams in the pennant race of 1894 scored a total of 198 single figure games to 194 double figure games. The record in detail being as follows:
SINGLE FIGURE. —————————————————————- Baltimore single figure victories 40 Baltimore single figure defeats 18 New York single figure victories 59 New York single figure defeats 25 Boston single figure victories 34 Boston single figure defeats 22 —- Totals 198 —————————————————————- |
|
