DOUBLE FIGURE. —————————————————————- Baltimore double figure victories 49 Baltimore double figure defeats 21 New York double figure victories 29 New York double figure defeats 19 Boston double figure victories 49 Boston double figure defeats 27 —- Totals 194 —————————————————————-

This record includes games counted out or forfeited.

The full record of the twelve clubs in single and double figure victories and defeats in 1894 is appended.

RECORD OF SINGLE AND DOUBLE FIGURE GAMES. ——————————————————————————————————- SINGLE FIGURE. DOUBLE FIGURE. CLUBS. Victories. Defeats. Totals. Victories. Defeats. Totals. ——————————————————————————————————- Baltimore 40 18 58 49 21 70 New York 59 25 84 29 19 48 Boston 34 22 56 49 27 76 Philadelphia 28 22 50 43 30 73 Brooklyn 34 27 61 36 35 71 Cleveland 39 36 75 29 25 54 Pittsburgh 35 35 70 30 20 50 Chicago 20 40 60 38 35 73 St. Louis 35 45 80 21 31 52 Cincinnati 36 37 73 20 38 58 Washington 28 34 62 17 53 70 Louisville 24 61 85 12 34 46 Totals 412 402 814 373 368 741 ——————————————————————————————————-

It will be seen that the Boston club, which was third in the race, is first in scoring the most total double figures in their contests, the "Phillies" being second and the Chicagos third. In total single figure scores New York takes a decided lead, while the Louisville club is second and St. Louis third. In single figure victories, however, New York is first, Baltimore second and Cleveland third; while in double figure victories Baltimore and Boston are tied and Philadelphia is third. The totals of 814 single figure games against 741 double figure contests shows that the pitching is not yet overpowered by the batting, though the use of the big mitts in infield work had much to do with the scoring of single figure games. As far as these records show, it would appear that the New York team really did the best batting of the season.



The Batting Averages.

We give below a record, taken from the official averages of the League, giving the batting figure, which shows the base hit percentage and the total sacrifice hits of those who have played in a majority of the scheduled games of the season of 1894, the limit being not less than 70 games. The names of the clubs are given in pennant-race order, beginning with Baltimore and ending with Louisville. The record is not of much account, except in the showing of the comparative base hit and sacrifice hit batting, the larger total of the latter giving the palm in case of a tie in the base hit averages. It also shows, as far as sacrifice hit figures can show, which batsman did the best team-work batting. But the one thing wanting in the record of batting averages is the data showing the runners forwarded by base hits, and until the scoring rules give such data there can be no correct data useful as a criterion of skilful batting. Another record needed in the score summary of each game is that of the number of chances given for catches off the bat, thus showing the carelessness of the batting in the averaged number of chances for catches offered off the bat.

Here, is the record above referred to:

An Analysis of the Batting Averages. ———————————————————

BALTIMORE CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Kelly 129 .391 19 Brodie 129 .369 24 Keeler 128 .367 16 Robinson 106 .348 11 Brouthers 123 .344 18 McGraw 123 .340 14 Jennings 128 .332 18 Reitz 109 .306 7 ——————————————————————————-

NEW YORK CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Doyle 105 .369 4 Davis 124 .345 9 Van Haltren 139 .333 13 Burke 138 .299 10 Fuller 95 .282 0 Tiernan 112 .282 6 Farrell 112 .282 3 Murphy 73 .271 2 Ward 136 .262 20 ——————————————————————————-

BOSTON CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Duffy 124 .438 10 McCarthy 126 .349 9 Lowe 133 .341 9 Bannon 127 .336 6 Tucker 122 .328 2 Long 103 .324 8 Nash 132 .294 3 ——————————————————————————-

PHILADELPHIA CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Turner 77 .423 8 Thompson 102 .403 8 Delahanty 114 .400 5 Hamilton 131 .398 7 Cross 128 .388 16 Hallman 119 .327 22 Boyle 116 .291 18 ——————————————————————————-

BROOKLYN CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Griffin 106 .365 5 Burns 126 .358 9 Daly 123 .338 4 Treadway 122 .336 12 Foutz 73 .310 8 Corcoran 129 .302 10 Shindle 117 .300 17 ——————————————————————————-

CLEVELAND CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Childs 117 .365 4 Burkett 124 .357 10 McKean 130 .354 11 O'Connor 80 .330 4 O. Tebeau 119 .305 9 Blake 73 .286 10 Zimmer 88 .285 2 McGarr 127 .272 5 G. Tebeau 105 .266 11 ——————————————————————————-

PITTSBURGH CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- E. Smith 125 .352 10 Stenzel 131 .351 5 Beckley 132 .344 22 Lyons 72 .311 11 Donovan 133 .306 26 Bierbauer 131 .301 20 Shugart 133 .285 13 Glasscock 86 .283 13 Shiebeck 75 .275 1 Weaver 90 .250 12 ——————————————————————————-

CHICAGO CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Anson 83 .394 7 Dahlen 121 .362 10 Ryan 108 .359 8 Wilmot 105 .331 14 Lange 112 .324 4 Decker 89 .310 2 Irwin 130 .302 4 Schriver 94 .269 5 Parrott 126 .244 9 ——————————————————————————-

ST. LOUIS CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Miller 125 .341 8 Ely 127 .305 13 Peitz 100 .274 7 Quinn 106 .274 13 Dowd 123 .267 9 Frank 80 .246 12 ——————————————————————————-

CINCINNATI CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Holliday 122 .383 4 McPhee 128 .320 6 Latham 130 .313 11 Hoy 128 .312 11 Canavan 100 .293 5 Murphy 76 .268 6 G. Smith 128 .266 3 ——————————————————————————-

WASHINGTON CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Joyce 98 .344 5 Hassamer 116 .326 10 Abbey 129 .318 13 Selbach 96 .309 3 McGuire 102 .304 4 F. Ward 89 .303 5 Cartwright 132 .292 3 Radford 93 .233 1 ——————————————————————————-

LOUISVILLE CLUB. ——————————————————————————- Percent. of Sacrifice BATSMEN. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————- Pfeffer 104 .297 15 Grimm 107 .290 8 Clark 76 .275 1 Richardson 116 .255 4 Brown 130 .251 14 Lutenburg 70 .192 3 ——————————————————————————-

The record of the twelve clubs in the League pennant race of 1894 in the total number of sacrifice hits is as follows:

———————————————————————————————— Sacrifice BATSMEN. CLUBS. Games. Hits. ———————————————————————————————— Donovan Pittsburgh 133 26 Brodie Baltimore 129 24 Cross Philadelphia 128 16 Pfeffer Louisville 104 15 Wilmot Chicago 135 14 Quinn St. Louis 106 13 Abbey Washington 129 13 Van Haltren New York 139 13 Tredway Brooklyn 122 12 Hoy Cincinnati 128 11 G. Tebeau Cleveland 105 11 Duffy Boston 124 10 ——————————————————————————————————-

The first nine in base hit averages were as follows: ——————————————————————————————————- Percent, of Sacrifice BATSMEN. CLUBS. Games. Base Hits. Hits. ——————————————————————————————————- Duffy Boston 124 .438 10 Turner Philadelphia 77 .423 8 Thompson Philadelphia 102 .403 8 Delahanty Philadelphia 114 .400 5 Hamilton Philadelphia 131 .398 7 Anson Chicago 88 .394 7 Kelly Baltimore 129 .391 19 Cross Philadelphia 128 .388 6 Holliday Cincinnati 122 .383 4 ——————————————————————————————————-



BASE RUNNING.

It should be borne in mind by the rulemakers of the League, and especially by the magnates who pass upon the work done by the Rules Committee, that base running has come to be as much of an art in the game as is skilful, strategic pitching or team-work in batting. Especially has skill in stealing bases become a potent factor in winning games, and year after year is it increasing in popular favor as one of the most attractive features of the game. Every manager of the period should realize the important fact, that, however strong his team may be in its "battery" department, or in the excellence of the field support given the pitchers, it is lacking in one essential element of strength if it be not up to the mark in base stealing by its players. Effective pitching and sharp fielding are, of course, very necessary to success in winning games, as also skilful batting, especially of the strategic kind. While it is a difficult task to get to first base safely in the face of a steady and effective fire from the opposing "battery," backed up by good support from the field, it is still more difficult when the first base is safely reached to secure the other bases by good base stealing. The fact is, a greater degree of intelligence is required in the player who would excel in base running than is needed either in fielding or in batting. Any soft-brained heavy-weight can occasionally hit a ball for a home run, but it requires a shrewd, intelligent player, with his wits about him, to make a successful base runner. Indeed, base running is the most difficult work a player has to do in the game. To cover infield positions properly, a degree of intelligence in the player is required, which the majority do not as a general rule possess; but to excel in base running such mental qualifications are required as only a small minority are found to possess. Presence of mind, prompt action on the spur of the moment; quickness of perception, and coolness and nerve are among the requisites of a successful base runner. Players habitually accustomed to hesitate to do this, that or the other, in attending to the varied points of a game, can never become good base runners. There is so little time allowed to judge of the situation that prompt action becomes a necessity with the base runner. He must "hurry up" all the time. Then, too, he must be daring in taking risks, while at the same time avoiding recklessness in his running.

Due consideration had not been given by the League magnates, up to 1895, to the importance of having more definite rules governing the base running in the game, the rules applicable to balks in pitching, as affecting the base running, having been at no time as clear and definite as they should be; nor have the existing rules bearing upon base running been strictly observed by the majority of the umpires each year; especially was this the case in 1892, when the observance of the balk rule was very lax indeed. The difficulty in framing a proper rule for the purpose is, to properly define the difference between a palpable fielding error, which enables a base to be run on the error, and an error plainly induced by the very effort made to steal a base. No base can be credited to a base runner as having been stolen which is the result of a dropped fly ball, a wild throw to a base player, or a palpable muff in fielding a batted ball. But in view of the difficulties surrounding base stealing, it is not going out of the way to credit a base as stolen when the effort of the runner, in taking ground and getting a start to steal, leads to a passed ball, a failure to throw to a base quick enough, or a failure on the part of a base player to put the ball on the runner quick enough. Of course these are, to a certain extent, errors on the part of the fielders, but they are not of the class of palpable errors as wild throws, dropped fly balls, and failures to pick up batted balls, or to hold well thrown balls, are. The other errors are consequent upon the effort on the part of the runner to steal a base, and as such should be included as part and parcel of a credited stolen base.

The Base Running of 1894.

The base running records of the past three years, under the rules of the great major league, present a very interesting set of tables, whereby one can judge of the good work done in this direction pretty fairly. Below we give the full record of each season in stolen bases from 1892 to 1894, inclusive, showing the totals of stolen bases by each club each season, together with the aggregate of stolen bases for the three years. We give the names of the twelve clubs in the order in which they lead in stolen bases at the end of the three years of base running. Here is the full record in question:

RECORD OF TOTAL STOLEN BASES FOR 1892, 1893 AND 1894. —————————————————————————- CLUBS. 1892. 1893. 1894. TOTALS. —————————————————————————- 1. New York 281 401 294 976 2. Brooklyn 408 247 266 921 3. Baltimore 197 261 320 778 4. Chicago 216 237 324 777 5. Cleveland 288 242 228 758 6. Boston 337 174 230 741 7. Pittsburgh 211 245 247 703 8. Philadelphia 217 174 266 657 9. Cincinnati 241 204 205 650 10. Washington 250 142 209 601 11. Louisville 228 174 198 600 12. St. Louis 196 196 150 542 —————————————————————————- Totals 3070 2697 2937 8704 —————————————————————————-

It will be seen by the above record that the best base running, in the aggregate of the three years' play, was made in 1892, the three leading clubs in stolen bases that year being Brooklyn, Boston and Cleveland. In 1893 the three leaders in base running were New York, Baltimore and Brooklyn, and the three leaders of the past season were Chicago, Baltimore and Brooklyn, Philadelphia being tied with Brooklyn. The tail-end clubs in stolen base records during the three years were St. Louis in 1892, Washington in 1893 and St. Louis in 1894. In the aggregate of the three years, New York stands first, Brooklyn second and Baltimore third, St. Louis being a bad tail-ender in these total figures. It is a noteworthy fact that when Brooklyn led in base running Ward was captain, while when New York led the next year, Ward was captain, too, New York jumping from .281 in 1892, when Ward was in Brooklyn, to .401 in 1893, when he went to the New York club, Brooklyn that year falling off from .408 to .247. Baltimore, too, made a big jump in base running after Hanlon became manager, the jump being from .197 in 1892 to .320 in 1894.

The highest totals of stolen bases in any one year was in 1892, there being quite a falling off in 1893; while in 1894 a considerable improvement was shown, the average for the three years being 2,901 for the twelve clubs.

Last season the Baltimore club's team, under Hanlon's control, excelled all the other Eastern teams in stealing bases, Philadelphia being second, New York third and Boston fourth in this respect, the Baltimore's quartette of leading base stealers scoring a total of 212 bases to Philadelphia's 185, New York's 180 and Boston's 156. The three teams of the Western clubs which excelled in base running last season were Chicago, with a total of 324; Pittsburgh, with 247, and Cleveland, with 228.

Had the umpires properly interpreted the balk rules in 1894, probably the total of stolen bases for that year would have got up among the twelve hundreds at least. This year they should be made to do it.

THE STOLEN BASE RECORD OF 1894.

The record of stolen bases for 1894, showing the best nine base stealers of each club is as appended. The names of clubs are given in pennant race order, and of players in the order of percentage of stolen bases per game.

THE RECORD OF THE FIRST DIVISION CLUBS. ————————————————————

BALTIMORE ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— McGraw 123 77 .636 Bonner 27 11 .407 Brodie 129 50 .388 Kelley 129 45 .350 Brouthers 126 40 .317 Jennings 128 36 .281 Keeler 128 30 .235 Reitz 109 18 .165 Robinson 106 9 .123

Totals 1005 820 .318 ————————————————————

NEW YORK ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Doyle 105 48 .457 Fuller 95 34 .358 Burke 138 47 .340 Van Halt'n 139 44 .315 Ward 136 41 .306 Davis 124 37 .298 Tiernan 112 24 .214 German 19 4 .211 Wilson 45 9 .200

Totals 1006 294 .292 ————————————————————

BOSTON ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Duffy 124 49 .395 Bannon 127 42 .331 McCarthy 126 40 .317 Tierney 24 7 .292 Long 103 25 .243 Lowe 133 25 .188 Tucker 122 19 .156 Nash 132 19 .144 Stivetts . 57 4 .070

Totals 948 230 .253 ————————————————————

PHILADELPHIA. ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Hamilton 131 99 .756 Thompson 102 29 .284 Delahanty 104 29 .279 Cross 120 28 .233 Hallman 119 26 .218 Boyle 116 22 .190 Reilly 36 6 .167 Sullivan 93 15 .161 Turner 77 12 .157

Totals 898 266 .296 ————————————————————

BROOKLYN. ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Griffin 106 48 .453 Daly 123 53 .431 LaChance 65 25 .385 Shock 63 18 .286 Corcoran 129 33 .256 Burns 126 29 .230 Foutz 73 16 .219 Treadway 122 26 .213 Shindle 117 18 .154

Totals 924 266 .288 ————————————————————

CLEVELAND. ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Ewing 53 19 .385 G. Tebeau 105 34 .324 McGarr 127 34 .269 McAleer 64 17 .266 Burkett 124 32 .258 McKean 130 32 .246 Childs 117 20 .171 O'Connor 80 13 .163 O. Tebeau 109 27 .155

Totals 909 228 .251 ————————————————————

It will be seen that the Baltimore club's nine excel the other five clubs in the percentage of stolen bases, Philadelphia being second and New York third; the other three following in order in percentage figures as follows: Brooklyn, Boston and Cleveland. In total stolen bases by the individual player, Hamilton leads with 99—the champion stolen-base record of the season—McGraw being second and Duffy third, followed by Griffin, Doyle and Ewing.

THE SECOND DIVISION LEADERS. ——————————————

PITTSBURGH. ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Stenzel 131 60 .450 Hartman 44 17 .386 E. Smith 125 37 .296 Shiebeck 75 19 .244 Donovan 131 31 .236 Glasscock 86 20 .233 Shugart 133 23 .172 Bierbaur 131 20 .153 Beckley 132 20 .152

Totals 987 247 .250 ————————————————————

CHICAGO. ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Lange 112 71 .634 Wilmot 135 76 .563 Dableu 121 49 .415 Parrott 126 34 .370 Irwin 130 34 .262 Decker 89 22 .247 Anson 83 17 .205 Ryan 108 12 .111 Schriver 94 9 .096

Totals 998 324 .325 ————————————————————

ST. LOUIS. ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Dowd 123 34 .276 Hogan 29 7 .248 Ely 127 23 .181 Pietz 100 17 .170 Miller 125 20 .160 Cooley 52 8 .154 Quinn 106 26 .151 Frank 80 12 .150 Breitenstein 53 3 .057

Totals 795 150 .189 ————————————————————

CINCINNATI ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Latham 130 62 .477 Holliday 122 39 .320 McPhee 128 31 .242 Hay 128 30 .235 M. Murphy 76 5 .192 Canavan 160 15 .150 Vaughn 67 6 .097 G. Smith 128 12 .094 Merritt 66 5 .079

Totals 945 205 .217 ————————————————————

WASHINGTON ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Ward 89 36 .401 Cartwright 132 35 .269 Radford 106 26 .245 Seebach 96 23 .240 Joyce 98 23 .235 Mercer 43 10 .233 Abbey 129 30 .233 Hassamer 116 15 .129 McGuire 102 11 .108

Totals 911 209 .229 ————————————————————

LOUISVILLE ———————————————————— Players. Games. Stolen Per cent. of Bases. Stolen Bases. ———————————————————— Brown 130 74 .569 Smith 39 13 .333 Pfeffer 104 33 .317 Clark 76 24 .316 Twitchell 51 9 .176 Denny 60 10 .167 Lutenberg 70 10 .143 Grim 107 14 .131 Richardson 116 11 .095

Totals 753 198 .263 ————————————————————

It will be seen that the leaders of the six second division clubs aggregated a total of 337 bases, of which Brown is credited with 74, Lange with 71, and Latham with 62. In percentages, however, Lange led with .634, Brown being second with .569, and Latham third with .477, Stenzel, Ward (of Washington) and Dowd following in order. In total percentages, the Chicago nine led "by a large majority," Louisville being second and Pittsburgh third, Washington beating both Cincinnati and St. Louis, the latter club making a very poor show in base running figures in 1894.

THE LEADING BASE STEALERS OF EACH CLUB.

The following record shows the leader of each club in percentage of stolen bases, the names being given in the order of percentage figures:

—————————————————————————- Total Per cent. Stolen of Stolen Players. Clubs. Games. Bases. Bases. —————————————————————————- Hamilton Philadelphia 131 99 .756 McGraw Baltimore 123 77 .636 Lange Chicago 112 71 .626 Brown Louisville 130 74 .569 Latham Cincinnati 130 62 .477 Doyle New York 105 48 .457 Griffin Brooklyn 106 48 .453 Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 60 .450 Duffy Boston 124 49 .395 Ewing Cleveland 53 19 .385 F. Ward Washington 89 36 .306 Dowd St. Louis 123 34 .276 —————————————————————————-

The record of the base runners of the twelve League clubs who have a record of 10 stolen bases and less than 20 each for 1894 is as follows:

—————————————————————————- PLAYERS. CLUBS. Games. Stolen Bases. —————————————————————————- 1. Ewing Cleveland 53 19 2. Shiebeck Pittsburgh 75 19 3. Tucker Boston 122 19 4. Nash Boston 132 19 5. Shock Brooklyn 63 18 6. Reitz Baltimore 109 18 7. Shindle Brooklyn 117 18 8. McAleer Cleveland 64 17 9. Lyons Pittsburgh 72 17 10. Anson Chicago 83 17 11. Pietz St. Louis 100 17 12. Foutz Brooklyn 73 16 13. Zimmer Cleveland 88 15 14. Sullivan Philadelphia. 93 15 15. Canavan Cincinnati 100 15 16. Hassamer Washington 116 15 17. Grimm Louisville 107 14 18. Smith Louisville 39 13 19. O'Connor Cleveland 80 13 20. Robinson Baltimore 106 13 21. Hartman Pittsburgh 49 12 22. Frank St. Louis 80 12 23. Turner Philadelphia. 77 12 24. Ryan Chicago 108 12 25. G. Smith Cincinnati 128 12 26. Bonner Baltimore 27 11 27. McGuire Washington 102 11 28. Richardson Louisville 116 11 29. Mercer Washington 43 10 30. Denny Louisville 70 10 31. Lutenberg Louisville 70 10 32. O'Rourke St. Louis 80 10 33. Farrell New York 112 10 —————————————————————————-

Those who did not steal a single base were pitchers Esper, Dwyer, J. Clarkson, Ehret, Staley, Whitrock, McGill, Wadsworth and catcher Buckley.



THE FIELDING OF 1894.

Season after season finds the fielding in base ball better attended to than any other department of the game; and it is fortunate for the business end of professional ball playing that it is so, as skilful fielding is decidedly the most attractive feature of our national game. Next to fielding comes base running, and lastly batting. The reason that so much more skill is shown in the fielding department than in that of batting, is due to the fact that more attention is giving to fielding than to batting. Regular training in team-work batting is practically unknown in the professional arena; while practice in fielding is given every attention. No game is played now-a-days without an hour being devoted to preliminary practice in fielding, while efficient batting is unknown except in the college arena, the professionals ignoring team-work batting practice in nearly every club. Hence the superiority fielding has attained over the batting. Go on any amateur field and watch a game in progress, and you can readily see the inferiority in fielding exhibited in comparison with that shown on the professional fields. It is not so in the batting, however. The reason is that amateurs have not the time to devote to the practice required to excel in fielding; but they can bat out three-baggers and home-runs as easily as the record batsmen do in the professional fields; it is different, however, in the case of doing team-work at the bat, owing to their not having time for the necessary practice.

Some splendid fielding was done in 1894, but as a whole it was not superior to that of 1893, or even to that of 1892. One reason for this was the introduction of the catcher's "big mitt" in the infield work—something that should not have been allowed. It was due to this fact that the batting scores were not larger the past season than they were in 1893, the big mitt on the hands of infielders enabling them to stop hard hit "bounders" and "daisy cutters" which, but for the use of the mitts, would have been clean earned base hits. This gave the infielders an opportunity to materially lessen the base hit record. By a mistaken calculation, the pitchers were charged with doing less effective work, single figure games being in a majority last season.

In contrast to the attractions of fine fielding, the average batting of the period is decidedly behindhand. What sight on a ball field is prettier to the good judge of the fine points of the game, than to see a hard hit "bounder" well stopped and accurately thrown from back of third base over to first base in time to cut off a rapid runner? or to see a splendidly judged fly ball held after a long run; or a hot "liner" caught on the jump by an infielder; or a beautiful triple play made from the infield; or a good double play from a neat catch, followed by a fine, long throw-in from the outfield? All these attractive features of sharp fielding all can enjoy and appreciate. But in the batting department too little team-work at the bat—that is, skilful scientific handling of the bat in the form of place hitting, to forward runners—is done to gratify good judges, the mere novices regarding over-the-fence hits for a home run as the very acme of "splendid batting," though they are invariably chance hits, and only made off poor pitching as a rule. Then, too, how the "groundlings," as Hamlet called them, enjoy "fungo" hitting, that is high balls hit in the air flying to the outfield, this style of hitting giving fifty chances for catches to every single home run. Time and again will one hear a "bleacher" remark, "I don't care if the ball was caught, it was a good hit," as if any hit could be a good one which gave an easy chance for a catch. When a "fungo" hitter takes his bat in hand all he thinks of is to "line 'em out, Tommy," in response to the calls from the "bleaching boards;" and when the ball goes up in the air to outfield a shout bursts forth from the crowd, only to be suddenly stopped as the ball is easily caught at deep outfield by an outfielder placed there purposely for the catch by the pitcher's skilful pitching for catches. Contrast this method of batting to that of place hitting which yields a safe tap to short outfield, ensuring an earned base; or the skilful "bunt" hit made at a time when the fielders are expecting a "line-'em-out" hit; or a sacrifice hit, following a good effort for a base hit to right field, which should mark all attempts to forward runners, especially when on third base. Of course there are skilful outfield hits made in team-work, but they are confined to hot, low liners, giving no chance for a catch, or hard hit "daisy cutters," which yield two or three bases; but every ball hit in the air to outfield shows weak batting, and this style of hitting it is which gives so many chances for catches in a game. It will be readily seen how inferior the "bleaching-board" style of batting is to team-work at the bat, and how much more attractive fielding is in contrast to the popular "fungo" hitting method, of which there was altogether too much in the League ranks last season to make the batting compare with the fielding, as an attractive feature of the game.



Single Figure Games.

There is a great difference between first-class single figure games, marked by batting against skilful, strategic pitching, backed up by splendid in and outfield support, and the class of contests known as "pitchers' games." The former are contests in which runners reaching second and even third base by good hits are cut off from scoring runs by superior pitching and fielding, and this class of games comprises the model contests of each season. On the other hand, the "pitchers' games," which yield single figure scores, are tedious and wearisome to the best judges of the game, from the fact that the brunt of the work falls on the "battery" team and one or two infielders, all the attractions of base running and of sharp fielding being sacrificed at the cost of seeing batsman after batsman retired on called strikes, arising from the intimidating speed of the pitching, this requiring the batsman to devote his whole energies to defending himself from the severe and often fatal injuries following his being hit by the pitched ball. Fortunately, the change in the distance between the pitcher and batsman has decreased the opportunity for this class of unattractive games. But it will not do to go over to the other side and by too much weakening of the box work give the "line-'em-out" class of "fungo" hitters a chance to revel in over-the-fence hits, and give the batsman undue preponderance in the effort to equalize the powers of the attack and defense in the game. Single figure games should outnumber double figure contests to make the game attractive for the scientific play exhibited, but not in the line of being the result of "cyclone" pitching.

The Umpiring of 1894.

The umpiring of 1894, despite of the new rules adopted early in the year governing the position, was no improvement over that of 1893; in fact, in several instances it was worse. The explicitly worded rule, prohibiting umpires from allowing any player, except the captain, to dispute a single decision of the umpire, was allowed to be openly violated by nearly every umpire on the staff. Then, too, as a rule, they, the majority, lacked the nerve and the courage of their convictions too much to keep in check the blackguardism displayed by a small minority of the players of the League teams of 1894; some of the umpires also displayed a degree of temper at times which sadly marred their judgment. That they all endeavored to do their duty impartially, goes without saying, but no umpire is fit for his position who cannot thoroughly control his temper. There was one instance shown of the folly of condoning the offence of drinking, which should not have been allowed; a drunken umpire is worse than a drunken player, for no one will respect his decisions. None such should be allowed on the League staff under any circumstances; moreover, no umpire connected with the low-lived prize-fighting business should be allowed on the League staff, no matter what his ability may be in other respects. When it becomes a necessity to have to engage pugilists as umpires to control hoodlum players, then will professional ball playing cease to be worthy of public patronage.

One great drawback to the successful umpiring which was expected to follow the revision of the rules made in March, 1894, was the countenancing of the abuse of umpires by the magnates of the clubs themselves. When presidents and directors of clubs fail to rebuke the faults of their club managers in allowing incompetent or hot-headed captains to set their players bad examples in this respect, they have no right to find fault with the poor umpiring which follows.

In the recent past, the rule on the League ball fields—and minor leagues copy all that the major league does—has been that, from the time the umpire takes up his position behind the bat, from the beginning to the end of a game, he finds both the contesting teams regarding him as a common enemy, the losing side invariably blaming him as the primary cause of their losing the game.

Then, too, in addition to the contesting teams as his foes, there are the majority of the crowd of spectators to be added to the list, the rougher element of the assemblage, the latter of whom regard the umpire as an especial target for abuse in every instance in which the home team is defeated. Last on the list of the umpire's opponents are the betting class of reporters, who take delight in pitching into him whenever his decisions—no matter how impartially he acts—go against their pet club or the one they bet on.

It is a fact not to be disputed, that those of the crowd of spectators at a ball game, who are so ready to condemn umpires for alleged partiality in their work, or for a supposed lack of judgment in rendering their decisions, never give a moment's thought to the difficulties of the position he occupies, or to the arduous nature of the work he is called upon to perform. There he stands, close behind the catcher and batsman, where he is required to judge whether the swiftly-thrown ball from the pitcher, with its erratic "curves" and "shoots," darts in over the home base, or within the legal range of the bat. The startling fact is never considered that several umpires have been killed outright while occupying this dangerous position. Neither does any one reflect for a moment that the umpire occupies this perilous position while regarded as a common enemy by both of the contesting teams, and as a legitimate object for insulting abuse from the partisan portion of the crowd of spectators. In fact, the umpire stands there as the one defenseless man against thousands of pitiless foes. The wonder is that half the umpires in the arena are as successful in the discharge of their arduous duties as they are, and the still greater wonder is that any self-respecting man can be induced to occupy a position which is becoming year after year more objectionable. There can be no successful umpiring accomplished in the position, no matter how perfect the code of rules governing the umpiring may apparently be, as long as that nuisance of the ball field, the professional "kicker," is allowed to have his way. In view of the express rules which are in the code, prohibiting the disputing of a single decision made by the umpire, it is astonishing that the umpires themselves, not to mention club managers and field captains, are so derelict in their duty in not enforcing the letter of the law of the code in this respect.

Let the magnates remember, when they say to each other this year—as they did at the close of the season of 1894—that "this hoodlumism in professional ball playing must be stopped," that it is themselves who are to blame for the blackguardism exhibited in the League arena in 1894. It is the failure of presidents and directors of League clubs to do their duty which is the real cause of such umpiring as we had in 1894. Club managers of teams, as a rule, do what they know the club presidents or directors quietly approve of or countenance, hence the latitude given to the hoodlum tactics of the rough element in each team. Don't blame umpires from meekly following the example club presidents and directors afford their team managers and captains.



Editorial Comments

ON THE OCCURRENCES, EVENTS AND NOTEWORTHY INCIDENTS OF 1894 IN THE BASE BALL ARENA.

Here is a list of the rules governing the movements of the pitcher, in delivering the ball to the bat, which we saw violated repeatedly during 1894, without any protests from any of the umpires who acted in the games we reported. First—

Not a pitcher had his foot in contact with the rubber plate last season, all of them invariably placing their back foot a few inches in front of the plate. Not one pitcher in ten, after feigning to throw to a base, resumed his position, as required by the rule, after making the feint. Not one in ten held the ball "firmly in front of his body," as the rule requires. Not one in ten faced the batsman, as required by Rule 30. As for the balk rule it was as openly violated last season almost as it was in 1893. Time and again was Section 29, Rule 32, violated as was Section 3 all the time, as not one had his foot in position as the rule requires, and yet not an umpire fined a single pitcher for the violation of the rules in question, that we saw.

What the pitching rules should be made to foster is, first—thorough command of the ball, with the consequent accuracy of aim in delivery; secondly—the substitution of skilful strategy in delivery in the place of mere intimidating speed; thirdly—the avoidance of the wear and tear of an extremely swift delivery of the ball; fourthly—the prevention of obstacles to successful base running, in the way of allowing too many balk movements in preventing stolen bases. These desirable objects were almost impossible of attainment under the badly-worded rules in existence in 1894.

In regard to the wearing of the catcher's "big mitt" by infielders in 1894, it is worthy of note that that first-class utility man of the Philadelphia team, "Lave" Cross, while wearing a catcher's mitt as third baseman—a large one at that, too—used it to such advantage that it was next to impossible for a ball hit to his position to get by him. At times it was simply laughable to see him stop ground hits. To wear such gloves is making a travesty of skilful infield work in stopping hard hit, bounding or ground balls. But with the speedy batting of the hard ball now in use, the stopping of hard hit balls in the infield becomes dangerous to the fingers without the aid of small gloves. But no such glove as the catcher's mitt should be allowed to be used save by the catchers or first basemen. In this position the "mitt" in question is a necessity in view of the great speed of the pitcher's delivery and the extremely wild, swift throwing from the field positions to first base. It should be borne in mind that in the days when gloves were not worn, when the pitching was far less swift than now, even then broken and split fingers marked nearly every contest, and behind the bat four catchers were needed where one or two will now suffice.

A Washington scribe, in commenting on Manager Schmelz's work in 1894, said: "Schmelz is a base ball man from the crown of his head to the soles of his feet, and we have been taught to believe here that when he says he will do a thing he comes pretty near fulfilling his prediction. If the team gets a fairly good start at the beginning of this season he is just as like as not to let several teams chase him under the wire in September next. A lack of team-work and a most deplorable weakness at short, second and third throughout the past season lost the team many a game."

To this latter list may be added, incompetent captaining of the team by the noted kicker, Joyce.

The Boston correspondent of the St. Louis Sporting News, in one of his letters of last winter, sent the following interesting account of an interview had between Manager Selee, of the Bostons, and a business man he met on a train last October. The B.M. asked the manager "whether ball-players, as a class, were a disreputable set of men, who made a practice of spending their money foolishly, and of saying and doing things on the ball field that were decidedly objectionable; also if, in consequence, the interest in the game had not to a very large degree been on the wane for a number of years past? He said he had read in the papers of a number of acts that had led him to believe that such was the case, and that, while formerly he had been an attendant at the games, that latterly he had lost his desire in that respect, though he still had an interest in all that is published about the game and the ball-players." Mr. Selee at once attempted to show the gentleman where his opinion was at fault, and an interesting conversation was carried on until the train reached Boston, the gentleman severely criticising the players and the Boston manager defending them.

The correspondent, in commenting on this, wrote as follows: "This incident opens anew a topic that has created considerable discussion for several years, and which was brought most forcibly to the public eye by a number of cases that occurred during the season of 1894, namely: Has the rough, rowdy, disreputable, hoodlum element increased or decreased in the professional arena in the past five or ten years?" Further on he adds: "Any intelligent, unprejudiced student of the game cannot but reach the conclusion that in recent years the excessive drinkers, the foul-mouthed talkers, in short, the worst element in the professional ranks, has been gradually weeded out, until the evil has been reduced to almost a minimum, while the intelligence, manliness and exemplary habits of the players have increased correspondingly; where, even five years ago, a ball team could be found where a majority of its players were of the drinking, gambling, disreputable class, to-day can be seen the results of a great and gratifying reform in the personnel of the teams, brought about largely by the efforts of the management, who have had their eyes opened to the trend of public opinion, and have gradually gotten rid of this unpopular element, and secured in their places players of a far different plane of morals." Judging from reports of contests in the League arena in 1894, the reformation above referred to has been far too slow in its progress for the good of the game. Witness the novelty in League annals of men fighting each other or striking umpires on the field, the use of vile language in abuse of umpires, and the many instances of "dirty" ball playing recorded against the majority of the League club teams of the past season. "The time was," says the same writer, "when a ball player's skill was the primary recommendation for an engagement, his moral qualifications being of a secondary consideration. To-day, however, while playing skill is, of course, one of the leading qualities that an applicant for honors on the diamond field must possess, it does not fill the whole bill by any means. His habits, his influence among his fellow players, his general reputation with the public, are also taken into consideration more than before, and if he can pass muster in all these respects he is eligible for engagement in all well managed teams."

In commenting on the existing situation of the professional branch of our grand national game, Mr. Wm. H. Bell, the Kansas correspondent of the St. Louis Sporting News, says: "The growth and development of our national game as been wonderful. Its success has been unparalleled in the world's history of athletic sports, and stands to-day a living monument to the courage, energy and perseverance of the American people. When we pause a moment in our contemplation of the brilliant future of our game and turn a glance back over the past, and try to realize that less than one generation has lived since the birth of base ball, and our fathers guided its first feeble steps, even we Americans, familiar with progress unequaled in the history of the world, are forced to marvel at the rapid growth of this athletic sport." Further on, on the same topic, Mr. Bell says very truly: "While base ball has advanced with great strides, its growth has been normal and healthy. Its success is not the result of a boom, giving it a fictitious value, its prosperity is not as an inflated balloon that will collapse when torn by the knife of adversity. It is but a creation of man, and while its life has been one of unequaled prosperity it has suffered, as do all things of this earth. One factor has ever been potent in its success and that is honesty. The honesty of the game has always been its motto, and though often assailed has still remained intact. This, alone, has gained for baseball a foothold in the hearts of the American people that nothing can dislodge. Americans are known the world over as lovers of fair and honest sport, and to base ball they have given their unswerving allegiance." Here is a merited compliment to the National League from the same able pen: "Our national game was never so firmly established in the hearts of the people as at the present time. It is safe in the hands of true and tried men, who are devoting their lives to its success. It is dominated and controlled by that grand old organization, the National League, which for twenty years has been the great exponent of the game, and has done more to advance the game than any other factor. The League has, during its life, stood on one platform, "honesty and purity in base ball," and has always retained the confidence and respect of the people. It has elevated the game until to-day base ball stands on a firm foundation of popular approval unequaled by any other athletic sport. While the game has advanced with marvelous rapidity it has experienced short periods of depression and stagnation during its career of thirty years. It has had enemies who have sought to pervert it for their own uses. It has been all but torn asunder by civil war. But each time it has bravely met the issue and in the end triumphed. It is just now recovering from the effects of a civil war which all but destroyed it. The rapidity with which it has recovered has been wonderful and is to me a greater proof of prosperity and success than any success that could come to it while enjoying a long period of peace." We regret not having space to quote more at length from Mr. Bell's very able article published in the Sporting News of January 12th last.

* * * * *

The Following Paragraph, Published In The New York Clipper Of February 5, 1895, Tells A Quiet Little Story Well Worthy Of Record In The Guide: "A.G. Spalding, Of The Chicago Club, Was Asked How So Much Stock Of The New York Club Came To Be Owned By Outside Parties, And He Said: 'well, I Will Tell You. During The Troublous Brotherhood Times Of 1890, Along In July, I Think, I Was Suddenly Summoned To New York. I Went Direct To Mr. Abell's House, By Request, Entirely Oblivious Of The Object Of The Sudden Call, And There Met Soden Of Boston, Reach Of Philadelphia, Byrne Of Brooklyn, Brush Of Indianapolis, And One Or Two Others. There We Received The Pleasant Information From John B. Day That The New York Club Was Financially At The End Of Its Rope, And Must Have Immediate Assistance. Imagine Our Surprise When We Were Told That The Club Must Have $80,000 At Once To Carry It Through The Season, Or The New York Club Must Give Up Its End Of The Fight. When We Had Collected Our Senses Sufficiently To Speak, It Was The General Opinion That If The New York Club Failed At That Stage Of The Game, The Fight With The Brotherhood Was Lost, And The Future Of The Old National League Was, To Say The Least, Uncertain; So It Was Finally Decided That We Must Save The New York Club At All Hazards, And Before We Separated That Night I Agreed To Provide $20,000, Soden And Brush Came Forward With Similar Amounts, And The Balance Was Taken By Reach, Abell And One Or Two Others, As I Remember. It Was Pretty Costly, But That Prompt Act Saved The National League, And, By Saving It, The Future Of Professional Base Ball In This Country Was, In My Opinion, Also Saved. This Will Explain How I First Became Interested In The New York Club, And, As A Result, Find Myself Criticised For Ever Being Permitted To Hold Any Of The Stock. Of This $20,000 Stock Alloted To Chicago, Anson Took And Paid Cash For $5,000, Another Chicago Gentleman Took $5,000, My Brother Walter $5,000 And Myself $5,000. Afterward I Sold Or Practically Gave My Stock To My Brother, And I Think He Picked Up Some More While He Was A Director Of The Club. That Brotherhood Fight Was A Great Fight, And One That Will Probably Never Be Duplicated. The Real Inside History Of That Struggle, And Its Final Settlement, Was Never Written, But If It Ever Is, It Will Prove Quite Interesting, As Well As Quite A Surprise To The Base Ball Men Of That Day. But Why Talk In This Strain Any Longer. You Know I Am Out Of Active Base Ball, And These Reminiscences Simply Emphasize The Fact That I Ought To Be Out Of It, For I Am Getting Too Old.'"

What A Commentary On The Selfish Greed Of The Overpaid Star Players Of The "Out-For-The-Stuff" Class Of The Professional Fraternity Mr. Spalding's Account Of One Costly Result Of The Players' Revolt Of 1890 The Above Story Presents. It Also Tells The True Story Of How The Above-Named Magnates Of The Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Brooklyn And Indianapolis Clubs Of 1890 Came To Be Financially Interested In The New York Club, Not For Profit, But To Save The Disruption Of The League.

* * * * *

The veteran Comiskey thus explains the difference in one special respect, between a seasoned player and a colt—and he is one who ought to know, you know. He said, in an interview: "No one appreciates the superiority of hustling, aggressive youngsters over the old standbys of the diamond more than I do. A seasoned player, as a rule, develops into a mechanical player who is always watching his averages and keeping tab on himself. While he may be too loyal to shirk, he will not take a chance which he is not compelled to. Especially is this true in running bases. How many of these old players will slide or go into a bag when they are blocked off? Very few. On the other hand, a young player appreciates that he has to make a reputation, while the old player, who has one to protect, is in the business for a livelihood and nothing else. Popular applause has lost its favor for him, and, while it is not unwelcome, it does not stimulate him to renewed exertions as it did when he began his career. It is entirely different with the man who is trying to establish himself in the major league. An ambitious young player thinks that the game depends upon him, and is dead sure that every crank agrees with him. Give him a good send-off in the papers, or let his manager commend him for a creditable piece of work, and he will break his neck in his efforts to deserve another installment to-morrow. The public demands snappy ball, and the young players are the only ones who can serve up that article."

In his remarks, Comiskey furthermore said: "The good effect of a manager's or captain's praise of a 'colt' is surprising. Both of these officials of the League clubs, almost without exception, are apt to be silent as the grave when a player makes a good point or a fine stop or catch; but the moment he fails to make an almost impossible play then comes the ill-natured snarl or the rutty growl. Harry Wright stands out alone as the only manager or captain to encourage a player with praise."

* * * * *

A Philadelphia scribe, in commenting on the rowdy ball playing of 1894 in the League ranks, says: "We could fill pages with evidence of the rowdyism indulged in by the majority of the League teams during the season of 1894, and that, too, if we were only to confine ourselves to the local reports of the season at Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and half a dozen other cities." As the Cleveland Leader had it, in commenting upon one of the Baltimore-Cleveland games:

"I say it with reluctance—for I have always admired Ned Hanlon's pluck—that the national game never received so severe a set-back as it did during the last Baltimore series here. The effort to spike players, the constant flow of profanity and vulgarity, the incessant and idiotic abuse of an umpire, all combined to make the Baltimore club—that local people have been led to believe was made of a crowd of earnest, honest players—thoroughly despised and detested. In ten years' experience in scoring games in Cleveland I have never heard such a torrent of vulgarity, profanity and brutal, senseless abuse heaped upon an umpire as Lynch stood from the Baltimore players upon the field here."

Similar charges against visiting teams were made by the Pittsburgh people against the Cleveland team; by the Philadelphia scribes against the Bostons, etc. In fact, proof, and plenty of it, was easily attainable from the reports from every League city during 1894, to a more or less extent.

The question apropos to this comment is, "What are you going to do about it" in 1895, Messrs. Magnates?

* * * * *

John Rowe, the veteran player, who was one of the "Big Four," transferred from the Buffalo club to the Detroit club, in the fall of 1885, is a firm believer in Southern trips during the preliminary season, to get the players in condition for a championship season. In speaking on that subject, he said: "The year the Detroits won the National League pennant we went South, and before the regular season opened that team had played over 40 games. In consequence we were in the acme of condition, and some of the teams nearly lost their breath when they tackled us for the first time. The men could hit like fiends, and field fast and perfect. There were no cases of 'charley horse' in our team, and as for 'glass arms,' they were not included in our outfit. It is a great thing, I tell you, and the managers who take their men into a warm climate are doing a sensible act. According to my idea the plan is to first practice until the players become limbered up, say for a week or so, before attempting to play a game. Then get in as many games as possible, without overdoing it, until the regular schedule begins, In the exhibition games the experiments can be tried out, and the men will gradually learn to play together, which means much to a club. Of course, there is more or less luck in base ball, but at the same time luck can't win alone all the time. Team-work and an agreeable manager count a long ways toward winning a pennant." We would add to the last line, that the absence of drinking and hoodlumism in the ranks is equally a necessity.

* * * * *

In the arena of minor leagues, in professional baseball, outside of the sectional leagues, like those of the Western, Eastern, Southern, New England and other like leagues, there is no class of minor leagues which is so much fostered as individual State leagues. Trio or duo State leagues should be avoided except in very exceptional cases. In the organization of the various minor leagues in existence, one special point has been too much neglected, and that is the importance of making the league's pennant race specially attractive by the attractive character of the honors to be won. Sectional leagues, made up of well-arranged circuits, present as good attractions in their championship honors at stake as that of the great major league, and next to these come the pennant races of State leagues. But what special object, in this respect, is there to strike for in the championships of trio or duo State leagues? None whatever. They are mere gate-money organizations, lacking all of the attractive features of sectional and State league pennant races. State leagues also possess the advantage of not interfering with the interests of the sectional leagues which include State clubs. Take any State in which professional base ball flourishes, and in the State there will be found two classes of professional clubs, viz., the one strong class, which exist in the larger cities of the State, and the weaker class which represents the smaller towns. The sectional leagues, of course, seek to attach the former to their circuits, leaving the latter eligible for State league circuits.

* * * * *

For many years past columns of space in papers making base ball a specialty have been occupied with long arrays of figures giving the averages of the players in the batting and fielding departments of the game. To such an extent has this feature of the annual statistics of the game been carried that the records based upon these averages have come to be regarded by the players as the primary object in view during each season's work in the field. As a result of this system those club directors and managers who have never fully examined into the merits of the subject, and who are not, therefore, aware of the fact that, as criterions of the most skilful play in each department, these averages are comparatively useless, have been led into the costly error of making their selections for their teams each season upon the basis of the figures of the players' averages, and hence the customary announcement made at the beginning of each season that "our team has the best batting average of the season." It is about time that the fallacy of this average business should be shown up in its true light and that the existing system of making out averages should be so changed as to make it some sort of a test of a player's skill in his home position, which it certainly is not now. The worst of this average business as it prevails now is that it is a powerful incentive for every player to make "playing for a record" his principal object in his season's work, and that all-important duty, "playing for the side," a matter of secondary consideration.

* * * * *

The cranks' title of "Giants," given years ago to the New York club's team, has become a misnomer. The team most entitled to it in 1894 was that of the Chicago club, no other club team making such a show of heavyweight players last season as did Anson's real "Giants," as will be seen by the appended record. Look at the figures of their biggest men:

—————————————————————— Height Weight Feet Inches lbs. —————————————————————— Schriver, catcher 5 10 185 Camp, pitcher 6 160 Anson, first base 6 1 202 L. Camp, second base 6 165 Parrott, third base 5 11 160 Clayton, short stop 6 1 180 Decker, left field 6 1 180 Lange, centre field 6 1 180 Dungan, right field 5 11 180 —— ——— —— Average 6 173 ——————————————————————

How does Murphy, Fuller, Burke, Ward et al stand in weight and size compared to the above "Giants"?

* * * * *

Here is something worthy of note by club managers who begin to get their teams together each spring, which we clipped from the St. Louis Sporting News of last December. The editor of the News said: "The player that is on the upward path is the man for success. He is playing for something far more than the salary he gets. He is looking forward to a place in the foremost ranks of the nation's ball players. Consequently he proves to be a hard worker at all times. He tries to land his club in the top notch, and his record, for the part he took, stands out as a recommendation to all the world. On the other hand, the older player, who has made his record and is going down again, has lost all his ambition. He can put no life into the club, his ginger has been expended in the days gone by, and the people look upon him as a back number. He sticks to the profession generally for a livelihood. He wants to play so as to hold his place, but he has lost the powers that he once had, and cannot do what he would like to accomplish. The old-timers had better get a hump on themselves this year, else will the youngsters drive them out of the business."

* * * * *

The well-known base ball writer, Mr. Pringle, was right when he said: "It is useless to get new rules until existing ones have been rigidly enforced and tested." It is an undeniable fact that the umpires of 1894, almost without exception, failed to properly enforce the rules governing the umpire's duties. In this regard Mr. Pringle said: "The rules relating to the duties of umpires are all right. They have power to stop all rowdy conduct on the field, but the trouble has been the lack of nerve on the part of umpires to enforce the rules." This, and the fact that the presidents and directors of clubs who governed the managers and captains of teams, were largely to blame in the matter for not backing up the umpires as they should have done. The latter have arduous duties enough to discharge as it is without their finding obstacles in their way in the partisan actions of club officials who control club managers and captains. When this class supports the umpires against the club teams it will be time enough to lay the whole onus of hoodlumism in the ranks on the umpires—not until then.

* * * * *

A Philadelphia scribe hits the nail on the head when, in commenting on the existing abuses of kicking and dirty ball playing in the League arena, he says: "If the club owners would take the initiative in enforcing decorum upon their players, upon pain of fine or suspension, instead of shifting the burden and onus upon the umpire, the problem of order at ball games would be solved at once. But the majority of magnates and managers, while openly, hypocritically, deploring dirty ball playing, secretly wink at it and rather enjoy it, especially if their particular club secures advantages from it. The players all know this, and so do the umpires; hence the former presume upon it, while the latter weaken in their intent and desire to strictly enforce the rules. When the duty of preserving order on the field and decorum among the players is devolved upon the clubs, who represent direct authority, power and responsibility, instead of irresponsible umpires, then, and not till then will the evils complained of cease, or at least be mitigated."

Al Wright, the base ball editor of the New York Clipper, in its issue of February 15, 1895, had this noteworthy paragraph in its columns: "Frank C. Bancroft, the business manager of the Cincinnati club, in speaking about the equalization of the players of the major league teams, said: 'I am not a firm believer in the prevalent practice of selling the best men in a weak or tail-end team to one of the leading clubs, and register a vigorous kick against it. My plan is that the National League shall pass a rule forbidding the sale of a player from a club in the second division, to a club in the first division. I think this would, in a measure, prevent some of the hustling to dispose of a clever man for the sake of the cash that is in the trade. There is certainly some good arguments in the idea, and not one against it. The clubs of the second division have been too willing to dispose of their best men for a decent cash consideration, and the damage that has been done to the game is incalculable.'"

A young Brooklyn writer, in commenting on the threatened war on the reserve rule which Messrs. Richter, Pfeffer, Buckenberger and Barnie were active in promoting, said: "Since the National League and American Association amalgamated at Indianapolis in 1892 the League has not been a glorious success." The reply to this is a statement of fact which contradicts the above assertion very flatly. The reorganized National League started its new career in the spring of 1892 with an indebtedness, resulting from the base ball war of 1891, of over $150,000. At the close of the season of 1892 it had partially redeemed its heavy indebtedness, and by the close of the season of 1893 it had paid the debt off in full, and it closed the season of 1894 with a majority of its clubs having a surplus in their treasuries, and that, too, despite the hardest kind of times of financial depression. If this is not a glorious success, pray what is?

A Pittsburgh scribe, in commenting on the dead failure of the scheme to organize a new American Association, one object of which was to levy war upon the now permanently established rule of the National Agreement clubs, very pointedly said last winter that "such a scheme would be folly of the maddest kind. There is not a good reason, theoretical or practical, sentimental or otherwise, in support of it. The success of base ball, to a very great extent, depends on public sentiment, and we have seen what a base ball war did to that sentiment four years ago. There is one solid basis for all base ball organizations, and that is the reserve rule. The proposed organization ignores this fundamental and necessary principle, and consequently can only be compared to that foolish man who built a house on sand."

During the decade of the eighties the League's code of rules had this special clause in it:

"Any player who shall be in any way interested in any bet or wager on the game in which he takes part, either as a player, umpire, or scorer, shall be suspended from legal service as a member of any professional Association club for the season during which he shall have violated this rule."

The question is, Why was this important and much-needed rule taken from the code?

No player can play ball as he should do who is personally interested in any bet on the content he is engaged in; that is a fact too true to be contradicted. Independent of this fact, too. Experience has plainly shown that the step of betting on a game he plays in is but a short one from accepting bribes to lose a game. The rule should long ago have been replaced in the code.

The Cleveland Leader says: "The patrons of the game have begun to realize the true inwardness of scientific batting, as shown in the securing of single bases by well-timed place hits, safe taps of swiftly-pitched balls to short outfield, and skilful efforts in sacrifice hitting and bunting, every such hit forwarding a run or sending a run in. Of course, to occupants of the bleaching boards, as a rule, the great attraction is the long hit for a home run, which is made at the cost of a 120-yards sprint, and at the loss of all chances for skilful fielding. But to the best judges of scientific batting the safe tap of the swiftly pitched ball, the well-judged bunt or the effort to make a safe hit to right field, which, if it fails, at least yields a sacrifice hit, is far more attractive than the old rut of slugging for home runs and making fungo hits to the outfielders."

There is something to fight for in the winning of a State league's championship honors, while there is little or nothing at stake in a trio or duo State league. Suppose each State had a four or six club circuit, and at the close of its season, each August or September, what a paying series of October games could be arranged in the Southern section of the country in October for a grand championship series for the prize of leading all the State leagues of the country for the honors of the champion pennant of State league organizations? By all means let State leagues be organized, until every State in the Union—North, South, East and West—has its representative State league.

The fickle nature of base ball "rooters" was conspicuously shown at the Polo Grounds in 1894. At the end of the June campaign, when the New York "Giants" stood sixth in the race, Ward's stock among the local "cranks" and "rooters," stood below par; at the close of the July campaign, however, that same stock was at a premium; and yet it was the same John M. Ward at the head of the "Giants." In May there were "none so poor to do him reverence." In August, John was carried off the field a hero. Of such are the "cranks" and "rooters."

A Toronto paper says: "Spalding Brothers will present to the champion club of all regularly organized base ball leagues, junior or senior, in Canada, a valuable flag, 11x28, pennant shaped, made of serviceable white bunting, red lettered, and valued at $20. The flags will be forwarded, duty free, immediately after the season closes. Each league must consist of four or more clubs, and each club must play not less than 12 championship games." This is a good plan to encourage the game on foreign soil. It has worked well in England and Australia, too.

Among the magnates of the League who could be seen at nearly all of the home games of the twelve clubs during the past season were the Boston triumvirate, Messrs. Soden, Conant and Billings; the irrepressible Charley Byrne, of Brooklyn; the handsome Vonderhorst, of Baltimore; the smiling Eddie Talcott, of New York; the noted "Philadelphia lawyer" Rogers, of Philadelphia; the "Boss Manager" Von der Ahe, of St. Louis; the energetic Kerr, of Pittsburgh, and Al Spalding's successor, President Hart, of Chicago.

The Louisville team was a strong one as regards its individual players. But it lacked harmony in its ranks and suffered from cliques. With two ex-captains in its team, besides the one who ran it, but little else could be expected. Ambitious ex-captains are obstacles in the way of successful management of a team. One regular captain should be the rule, with an acknowledged lieutenant—a pair like Comiskey and Latham, who worked the old St. Louis "Browns" up to being four-time winners of pennant honors.

It is a noteworthy fact that Anson has been manager and captain of the Chicago club's teams since 1877, and from that year to this he has taken his team to the goal of the championship five years of the six the club won the pennant, A.G. Spalding being the manager in 1876, the first year the club won the honors. Fifteen successive years of management in one club beats the League's records in that respect.



[Illustration: Harvard Team, '94.]



EASTERN LEAGUE SCHEDULE. —————————————————————————————————-

Clubs. At Toronto. At Buffalo. At Rochester.

—————————————————————————————————- ................ May 29, 30, 30 June 6, 7, 8 Toronto ................ June 17, 18, 19 July 6, 8 ................ July 15, 16 Aug. 14, 15, 16 —————————————————————————————————- May 24, 24 ................ June 1, 3, 4 Buffalo May 31, July 1,2 ................ July 9, 10 Sept. 11, 12, 14 ................ Aug 17, 19, 20 —————————————————————————————————— June 10, 11, 12 June 13, 14, 15 ................ Rochester July 12, 13 July 4, 4 ................ Aug. 24, 26, 27 Aug 21, 22, 23 ................ —————————————————————————————————- June 13, 14, 15 June 10, 11, 12 May 29, 30, 30 Syracuse July 9, 10 July 12, 13 July 1, 2 Aug. 21, 22, 23 Aug 24, 26, 27 Sept. 10, 11, 15 —————————————————————————————————- Wilkes- May 16, 17, 18 May 13, 14, 15 May 23, 25, 27 Barre July 26, 27 July 24, 25 July 20, 22 Sept. 3, 4, 5 Sept. 6, 7, 9 Aug 28, 29, 30 —————————————————————————————————- May 13, 14, 15 May 16, 17, 18 May 20, 21, 22 Scranton July 24, 25 July 26, 27 July 18, 19 Aug. 31, Sep. 2,2 Aug. 28, 29, 30 Sept. 6, 7, 9 —————————————————————————————————- Spring- May 20, 21, 22 May 23, 25, 27 May 13, 14, 15 field July 20, 22 July 18, 19 July 26, 27 Aug. 28, 29, 30 Aug. 31, Sep.2, 2 Sept. 3, 4, 5 —————————————————————————————————- Provi- May 23, 25, 27 May 20, 21, 22 May 16, 17, 18 dence July 18, 19 July 20, 22 July 24, 25 Sept. 6, 7, 9 Sept. 3, 4, 5 A'g 31, Sep. 2, 2 —————————————————————————————————-

—————————————————————————————————-

Clubs. At Syracuse. At Wilkes-Barre. At Scranton.

—————————————————————————————————- June 1, 3, 4 May 6, 7, 8 May 9, 10, 11 Toronto July 4, 4 June 21, 22 June 24, 25 Aug. 17, 19, 20 Aug. 10, 12, 13 Aug. 7, 8, 9 —————————————————————————————————- June 6, 7, 8 May 9, 10, 11 May 6, 7, 8 Buffalo July 6, 8 June 24, 25 June 21, 22 Aug. 14, 15, 16 Aug 7, 8, 9 Aug 10, 12, 13 —————————————————————————————————- June 17, 18, 19 Apr. 29, 30, May 1 May 2, 3, 4 Rochester July 15, 16 June 28, 29 June 26, 27 Sept. 12, 13, 14 July 30, 31 Ag. 1 Aug 2, 3, 5 —————————————————————————————————- ................ May 2, 3, 4 Apr. 29, 30, May 1 Syracuse ................ June 26, 27 June 28, 29 ................ Aug 2, 3, 5 July 30, 31 Ag. 1 —————————————————————————————————- Wilkes- May 20, 21, 22 ................ July 1, 3, 4 Barre July 18, 19 ................ July 4, 4 Aug. 31, Sep. 2,2 ................ Aug 14, 15, 16 —————————————————————————————————- May 23, 25, 27 May 29, 30, 30 ................ Scranton July 20, 22 July 1, 2 ................ Sept. 3, 4, 5 Aug. 17, 19, 20 ................ —————————————————————————————————- Spring- May 16, 17, 18 June 6, 7, 8 June 10, 11, 12 field July 24, 25 July 15, 16 July 12, 13 Sept. 6, 7, 9 Sept. 13, 14, 15 Sept. 10, 11, 12 —————————————————————————————————- Provi- May 13, 14, 15 June 10, 11, 12 June 6, 7, 8 dence July 26, 27 July 12, 13 July 15, 16 Aug. 28, 29, 30 Sept. 10, 11, 12 Sept. 13, 14, 15 —————————————————————————————————-

————————————————————————

Clubs. At Springfield. At Providence.

———————————————————————— Apr 29, 30, May 1 May 2, 3, 4 Toronto June 28, 29 June 26, 27 Aug. 2, 3, 5 July. 30, 31 Ag.1 ———————————————————————— May 2, 3, 4 Ap. 29, 30, May 1 Buffalo June 26, 27 June 28, 29 July. 30, 31 Ag.1 Aug. 2, 3, 5 ———————————————————————— May 9, 10, 11 May 6, 7, 8 Rochester June 24, 25 June 21, 22 Aug 10, 12, 13 Aug 7, 8, 9 ———————————————————————— May 6, 7, 8 May 9, 10, 11 Syracuse June 21, 22 June 24, 25 Aug 7, 8, 9 Aug 10, 12, 13 ———————————————————————— Wilkes- June 17, 18 19 June 13, 14, 15 Barre July 6, 8 July 9, 10 Aug. 21, 22, 23 Aug. 24, 26, 27 ———————————————————————— June 13, 14, 15 June 17, 18 19 Scranton July 9, 10 July 6, 8 Aug. 24, 26, 27 Aug. 21, 22, 23 ———————————————————————— Spring- ................ May 29, 30, 30 field ................ July 4, 4 ................ Aug. 17, 18, 20 ———————————————————————— Provi- June 1, 3, 4 ................ dence July 1, 2 ................ Aug. 14, 15, 16 ................ ————————————————————————



THE EASTERN LEAGUE.

The cities composing the Eastern League circuit are Toronto, Canada; Buffalo, N.Y.; Rochester, N.Y.; Syracuse, N.Y.; Providence, R.I.; Springfield, Mass.; Scranton,, Pa., and Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

The officers are; P.T. Powers, President, Secretary and Treasurer; headquarters, A.G. Spalding & Bros., 126 Nassau St., New York.

Board of Directors: James Franklin, Buffalo; George N. Kuntzsch, Syracuse; William H. Draper, Providence, and E.F. Bogert, Wilkes-Barre.

The base ball magnates of the Eastern League held their annual schedule meeting at the Fifth Avenue Hotel March 13th.

These delegates were present: President P.T. Powers, James Franklin and Charles H. Morton, Buffalo ; E.A. Johnson and John M. Battey, Providence; Charles F. Leimgruber and J.C. Chapman, Rochester; William Barnie, Scranton; I.E. Sanborn and Thomas E. Burns, Springfield; George N. Kuntzsch, Syracuse; William Stark and Charles Maddock, Toronto; E.F. Bogert, L.W. Long and Dan Shannon, Wilkes-Barre.

The League has a great staff of umpires for this season, as will be seen from the following list appointed at the meeting: Tim C. Hurst, of Ashland, Pa.; Herman Doescher, of Binghamton; John H. Gaffney, of Worcester, and Charles N. Snyder, of Washington. It was voted to increase the staff to five, and President Powers will sign another umpire. He will also keep a number of reserve men in readiness to fill in as substitutes in place of local men, as formerly.

The constitution was subjected to a few minor changes, the most important being the change of date for the payment of the guarantee to finish the season ($250 per club) from May 1st to April 15th.

John Depinet, of Erie, and Lawrence T. Fassett, of Albany, were elected honorary members of the League, with all privileges of games, etc.

The Eastern League adopted the Spalding League Ball as the Official Ball for 1895, and it will be used in all League games.



The Eastern League Averages.

THE RECORDS MADE BY EACH PLAYER IN BATTING AND FIELDING ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL FIGURES—THE AVERAGES OF THE CLUBS.

Sheehan of Springfield leads the entire batting list with the fat percentage of .416. Patchen of Scranton was second with .392, and Mulvey of Allentown-Yonkers was third, .391. All three of these are ahead of Drauby's record, .379, which led the Eastern League the previous year. Rudderham led the pitchers in fielding his position.

The club averages are significant. They show that the Providence champions turned up third in batting, and led the list in fielding. Thus they deserved to win, for the Springfields, second in batting, are third in fielding, tied with Troy; and Buffalo, first in batting, comes sixth in fielding. Scranton and Yonkers see-saw on the tail end. Wilkes-Barre is below the centre of the heap in both fielding and batting. In fact, the sum up of club averages in stick work and field work indicates that the clubs finished about as they deserved. The figures will give opportunity for a couple of hours study.

—————————————————————————————————————- 1 2 s n t d P A e G t B B r a R a a c m B u s s e e a n e e n s t s s s t NO. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . —————————————————————————————————————- 1 Sheehan Springfield 32 144 31 60 2 .415 2 Parchen Scranton 32 135 15 53 5 .392 3 Mulvey Yonkers 22 92 13 36 2 .391 4 Kelley Yonkers 15 61 11 23 2 .377 5 P. Sweeney Yonkers 21 86 21 33 3 .372 6 Knight Wilkes-Barre and Providence 113 493 108 183 34 .371 7 Bassett Providence 109 484 125 178 32 .367 8 Smith Buffalo 24 96 14 35 3 .364 Rafter Binghamton and Syracuse 43 184 31 67 14 .364 10 Minnehan Syracuse 115 504 95 182 11 .361 11 O'Brien Binghamton 15 61 9 22 0 .360 12 Griffin Buffalo and Syracuse 106 465 103 167 14 .359 13 Raymond Binghamton 22 92 23 33 4 .358 14 Vickery Buffalo and Springfield 54 199 47 70 8 .356 15 Shearon Erie 103 145 108 158 23 .355 16 Dowse Binghamton, Buffalo, and 88 355 76 126 5 .354 Troy 17 Power Binghamton and Syracuse 79 328 72 116 15 .353 18 Collins Buffalo 125 562 126 198 18 .352 19 Drauby Buffalo 97 436 126 153 12 .350 20 Shannon Wilkes-Barre 77 347 77 121 21 .348 21 Nadeau Springfield 110 469 128 162 30 .345 22 Field Erie 109 436 71 150 16 .344 Sweeney Binghamton 27 116 21 40 0 .344 24 Campfield Wilkes-Barre 29 94 20 32 1 .340 Dixon Providence 80 320 58 109 33 .340 26 Rogers Providence 112 492 97 167 37 .339 27 Lytle Wilkes-Barre and Binghamton 101 479 115 162 39 .338 Carr Binghamton 15 71 13 24 2 .338 29 Weddige Buffalo 21 86 19 29 1 .337 Wood Yonkers 22 86 21 29 2 .337 31 Lynch Springfield 110 469 127 158 44 .336 Kilroy Syracuse 30 98 22 33 8 .336 Clymer Buffalo 121 523 97 176 36 .336 34 Lyons Providence 108 511 131 171 37 .334 Johnson Troy and Scranton 111 463 221 155 14 .334 Bottenus Springfield 110 440 111 147 22 .334 Betts Wilkes-Barre 107 463 114 155 21 .334 38 Gillen Wilkes-Barre 106 417 89 139 17 .333 Nicholson Erie 105 453 115 151 71 .333 40 Lewee Buffalo 71 262 56 87 3 .332 41 Breckenridge Troy and Springfield 113 440 98 146 11 .331 Lally Erie 108 458 78 152 8 .331 43 O'Brien Buffalo 60 276 77 91 14 .329 Payne Syracuse and Binghamton 52 197 37 65 5 .329 45 Cahill Scranton and Troy 91 402 73 132 26 .328 46 Scheffler Troy and Springfield 111 459 138 150 29 .326 47 Friel Binghamton, Scranton, & 60 251 58 81 17 .322 Springfield Pickett Troy 71 304 54 98 12 .322 Hoffer Buffalo 76 282 63 91 5 .322 50 Lezotte Wilkes-Barre 78 336 73 108 8 .321 51 Shannon Springfield 109 493 115 158 15 .320 52 Gore Binghamton 48 191 46 61 5 .319 53 Boyd Buffalo 82 339 76 105 10 .318 54 Berger Erie 67 255 50 80 3 .313 " Urquhart Buffalo 101 402 80 126 7 .313 56 Bausewein Syracuse 44 146 8 45 4 .308 " Demont Buffalo, Bingh'ton & Scranton 36 146 31 45 4 .308 " Burns Springfield 36 146 27 45 7 .308 59 Daly Buffalo 82 336 82 103 7 .306 60 Hoover Syracuse and Scranton 83 344 74 105 21 .305 61 Warner Wilkes-Barre 97 387 71 118 17 .304 62 Barnett Binghamton and Syracuse 42 132 23 40 2 .303 " Hanrahan Binghamton and Syracuse 54 221 36 67 4 .303 64 J. Hess Wilkes-Barre and Scranton 78 348 72 105 8 .301 65 T. Hess Syracuse 98 381 64 114 6 .299 66 Gunson Erie 64 261 40 78 2 .298 67 Whitehead Binghamton and Scranton 30 131 28 39 8 .297 68 Welch Syracuse 108 422 111 125 81 .296 " Eagan Syracuse 111 435 97 129 30 .296 70 Cross Syracuse 69 247 62 73 34 .295 " Duryea Binghamton and Yonkers 53 190 24 56 6 .295 " Heine Binghamton and Buffalo 50 203 35 60 8 .295 73 Simon Troy and Syracuse 114 485 123 143 22 .294 " Faatz Syracuse 25 102 15 30 0 .294 75 Donnelly Troy and Springfield 83 361 91 104 15 .288 " Wilson Syracuse 27 104 18 30 1 .288 " Pettit Providence and Wilkes-Barre 78 368 65 106 12 .288 78 Conley Syracuse 62 247 30 71 9 .287 " Brown Wilkes-Barre 54 233 28 67 2 .287 80 Keenan Wilkes-Barre 47 175 24 50 1 .286 81 Gruber Troy and Springfield 45 151 33 40 0 .284 82 Stearns Wilkes-Barre and Buffalo 76 307 76 37 14 .283 " Lehane Scranton and Springfield 99 386 67 110 5 .283 84 Stricker Providence 108 436 88 123 52 .282 " Cooney Providence 98 422 68 119 28 .282 86 Delaney Binghamton and Scranton 51 188 35 53 6 .281 87 Mack Binghamton 66 272 62 76 10 .278 88 Van Dyke Erie 108 434 66 120 36 .276 89 Leahy Springfield 101 423 96 116 30 .274 90 Bott Buffalo 18 66 11 13 2 .272 91 Healy Erie 37 137 21 37 0 .270 92 McGinness Erie 27 89 11 24 1 .269 93 Smith Erie 108 432 102 115 19 .266 94 Murray Providence 109 430 80 112 68 .260 95 Murphy Troy 29 116 11 30 1 .258 " Johnson Buffalo 51 213 31 55 13 .258 97 Rogers Scranton 21 82 10 21 1 .256 98 Kuehne Erie 106 427 64 109 13 .255 99 McCauley Providence 53 197 33 50 27 .253 100 Phelan Scranton 26 103 20 26 8 .252 101 Wise Yonkers 20 80 14 20 7 .250 " Dolan Binghamton and Springfield 25 84 12 21 0 .250 103 Egan Providence 35 105 25 26 9 .247 104 McMahon Wilkes-Barre 99 393 43 97 4 .246 105 Lovett Providence 16 62 7 15 0 .241 106 Donovan Scranton, Troy and Yonkers 34 121 12 29 4 .289 107 Sullivan Providence 40 155 23 37 10 .238 108 Smith Troy and Scranton 108 421 67 97 1 .230 108 Coughlin Springfield 49 178 26 41 1 .230 110 Messitt Springfield 82 112 20 25 2 .228 111 Meekin Troy and Wilkes-Barre 39 135 28 30 4 .222 112 Fisher Buffalo 17 60 5 18 3 .216 112 W. Sweeney Yonkers 20 74 7 16 2 .216 114 Costello Yonkers 22 86 9 18 1 .209 115 Marshall Binghamton 17 62 10 19 0 .206 116 Quarles Wilkes-Barre and Scranton 35 127 16 26 2 .204 117 Blackburn Wilkes-Barre and Scranton 18 66 9 13 0 .196 118 Kilroy Yonkers 17 64 10 12 4 .187 119 Connors Binghamton 19 75 12 14 1 .186 120 Lang Binghamton 16 59 19 11 7 .183 121 Herndon Erie 47 189 21 29 1 .182 122 Lohbeck Binghamton 42 160 20 29 7 .181 123 Phillips Troy 15 59 8 10 1 .169 124 Rudderham Providence 30 105 7 17 2 .161 —————————————————————————————————————-

PITCHERS' FIELDING AVERAGES. ——————————————————————————————————— P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————— 1 Rudderham Providence 30 9 46 1 .982 2 Lovett Providence 16 7 38 1 .975 3 Bausewein Syracuse 41 14 60 3 .960 4 Sullivan Providence 39 8 72 4 .952 5 Campfield Wilkes-Barre 29 8 49 3 .949 6 Hoffer Buffalo 57 39 92 8 .942 6 Vickery Buffalo and Springfield 52 26 122 9 .942 6 Bott Buffalo 18 3 46 3 .942 9 Keenan Wilkes-Barre 38 29 64 6 .939 10 McGinnis Erie 27 6 52 4 .935 11 Gruber Troy and Springfield 45 7 77 7 .931 12 Duryea Binghamton and Yonkers 40 36 65 9 .918 13 Blackburn Scranton and Wilkes-Barre 17 8 25 3 .916 14 Coughlin Springfield 45 19 79 9 .915 15 Meekin Troy and Wilkes-Barre 39 29 63 9 .910 16 Donovan Troy, Scranton and Yonkers 34 14 55 7 .907 17 Fisher Buffalo 17 6 23 3 .906 18 Fagan Providence 20 9 65 8 .902 19 Herndon Erie 46 23 61 10 .896 20 Marshall Binghamton 13 3 23 3 .896 21 Quarles Wilkes-Barre and Scranton 33 13 64 9 .895 22 Dolan Binghamton and Springfield 25 4 34 5 .886 23 Healy Erie 34 14 63 16 .885 24 Delaney Binghamton and Scranton 50 21 80 12 .884 25 Kilroy Syracuse 27 20 56 10 .883 26 Barnett Binghamton and Syracuse 42 4 86 12 .852 27 Payne Syracuse and Binghamton 18 9 19 10 .736 ——————————————————————————————————-

CATCHERS' AVERAGES. —————————————————————————————————— P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . —————————————————————————————————— 1 Lohbeck Binghamton 42 138 30 6 .965 2 Gunson Erie 54 157 46 8 .962 3 Berger Erie 58 180 45 9 .961 4 Dixon Providence 63 241 48 12 .960 5 Cahill Troy and Scranton 51 161 51 11 .950 6 Urquhart Buffalo 83 321 74 22 .947 7 Warner Wilkes-Barre 97 317 71 22 .946 8 Wilson Syracuse 20 71 26 6 .941 9 Leahy Springfield 95 321 76 25 .940 10 Murphy Troy 24 83 10 6 .939 11 Hess Syracuse 89 253 54 22 .933 12 McCauley Providence 53 136 47 23 .913 13 Boyd Buffalo 61 226 37 28 .903 14 Rafter Binghamton and Syracuse 43 128 40 20 .893 15 Patchen Scranton 32 114 20 17 .887 —————————————————————————————————————-

SHORT STOP AVERAGES. —————————————————————————————————— P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . —————————————————————————————————— 1 Demont Binghamton and Buffalo 29 68 117 23 .898 1 Shannon Springfield 109 245 454 90 .898 3 Cooney Providence 98 148 331 55 .897 4 Smith Erie 106 205 429 75 .894 5 W. Sweeney Yonkers 20 40 78 14 .893 6 Lewee Buffalo 71 146 269 50 .892 6 Smith Troy and Scranton 108 139 332 57 .892 8 Cross Syracuse 69 172 275 60 .881 9 Hanrahan Syracuse and Binghamton 54 65 166 35 .870 10 McMahon Wilkes-Barre 99 218 402 98 .863 11 Johnson Buffalo 49 70 144 39 .845 12 Lang Binghamton 16 20 52 14 .837 13 Heine Binghamton and Buffalo 35 75 103 35 .835 —————————————————————————————————————-

FIRST BASE AVERAGES. —————————————————————————————————— P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . —————————————————————————————————— 1 Brown Wilkes-Barre 54 578 30 10 .983 2 Breckenridge Troy and Springfield 113 1133 37 22 .981 2 Field Erie 109 1092 56 22 .981 2 Kelly Yonkers 12 96 11 2 .981 5 Lehane Springfield and Scranton 98 938 64 20 .980 6 Rogers Providence 109 970 42 25 .975 7 Power Binghamton and Syracuse 79 728 37 20 .974 8 Drauby Buffalo 46 455 21 14 .971 8 Faatz Syracuse 25 235 4 7 .971 10 Conley Syracuse 62 569 15 19 .968 11 Stearns Buffalo and Wilkes-Barre 76 774 24 30 .945 12 Sweeney Binghamton 23 215 9 15 .937 —————————————————————————————————————-

SECOND BASE AVERAGES. —————————————————————————————————— P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . —————————————————————————————————— 1 Stricker Providence 108 341 308 30 .955 2 Wise Yonkers 20 76 79 8 .950 3 Lynch Springfield 20 70 59 7 .948 3 Pickett Troy 71 241 197 24 .948 5 Eagan Syracuse 111 364 362 40 .947 6 Clymer Buffalo 54 159 171 21 .940 7 Nicholson Erie 105 321 300 42 .937 8 Cahill Troy and Scranton 28 75 78 11 .932 9 Burns Springfield 36 104 82 14 .930 10 O'Brien Buffalo 60 192 162 28 .926 10 Mack Binghamton 66 185 206 31 .926 12 Smith Buffalo 13 36 31 7 .905 13 Shannon Wilkes-Barre 77 168 221 41 .904 —————————————————————————————————————-

THIRD BASE AVERAGES. ———————————————————————————————————- P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . ———————————————————————————————————- 1 Bassett Providence 109 183 290 46 .911 2 Kuehne Erie 106 154 265 41 .910 3 Minnehan Syracuse 111 165 251 45 .902 4 Donnelly Troy and Springfield 83 123 207 36 .901 5 Whitehead Binghamton and Scranton 30 43 61 13 .888 6 Smith Troy 16 14 41 7 .887 6 Lynch Springfield 87 203 223 54 .887 8 Dowse Buffalo, Troy and Binghamton 67 97 146 36 .870 9 Mulvey Yonkers 22 35 44 12 .858 10 Gillen Wilkes-Barre 106 127 216 67 .836 11 O'Brien Binghamton 15 20 15 9 .818 12 Phelan Scranton 29 19 31 12 .806 13 Raymond Binghamton 22 24 42 17 .795 14 Weddige Buffalo 14 16 20 11 .765 —————————————————————————————————————-

FIELDERS' AVERAGES. ———————————————————————————————————- P A P u s E e G t s r r a i r c m O s o e e u t r n s t s s t No. Name. Club. . . . . . ———————————————————————————————————- 1 Clymer Buffalo 61 152 11 4 .976 2 Drauby Buffalo 37 67 5 5 .960 2 Welch Syracuse 108 225 19 10 .960 4 Lyons Providence 108 294 27 14 .956 4 Gore Binghamton 48 99 10 5 .956 6 Simon Syracuse and Troy 114 265 15 13 .955 7 Scheffler Troy and Springfield 112 175 23 12 .942 8 Hoffer Buffalo 19 45 3 3 .941 9 Collins Buffalo 125 299 34 21 .940 10 Wood Yonkers 22 42 3 3 .937 11 Griffin Buffalo and Syracuse 106 178 13 13 .936 12 Lally Erie 108 239 17 18 .934 13 Knight Wilkes-Barre and Providence 113 307 13 24 .930 14 Van Dyke Erie 108 219 23 20 .923 15 Johnson Troy and Scranton 111 312 24 31 .915 16 Betts Wilkes-Barre 107 302 23 31 .912 17 Shearon Erie 103 163 21 18 .910 18 Payne Binghamton and Syracuse 47 58 9 7 .905 19 Bottenus Springfield 110 267 6 31 .898 20 Daly Buffalo 82 137 17 18 .895 21 Murray Providence 108 144 26 21 .890 22 Lezotte Wilkes-Barre 63 112 7 15 .888 22 Carr Binghamton 15 32 2 4 .888 24 Connors Binghamton 19 37 2 5 .886 25 Hess Wilkes-Barre and Scranton 74 136 8 20 .878 26 Nadeau Springfield 85 187 17 30 .871 27 Lytle Wilkes-Barre and Binghamton 87 196 34 36 .864 28 Hoover Syracuse and Scranton 83 152 12 27 .858 29 Friel Spr'gf'ld, Binham'n, Scranton 60 96 5 11 .857 30 Pettit Providence and Wilkes-Barre 57 98 5 12 .830 31 Rogers Scranton 18 32 2 7 .829 32 P. Sweeney Yonkers 17 34 4 8 .825 33 Costello Yonkers 13 28 2 7 .810 34 Sheehan Springfield 32 36 6 7 .728 —————————————————————————————————————-

CLUB BATTING AVERAGES. ———————————————————————- A B S P t a t e s o B r B R e H l a C a u i e s e t n t n e n s s s s t No. CLUB. . . . . . ———————————————————————- 1 Buffalo 4630 1022 1500 154 .323 2 Springfield 4004 942 1268 184 .316 3 Providence 4210 842 1306 365 .310 4 Syracuse 4092 814 1260 186 .307 5 Binghamton 3018 585 919 128 .304 6 Wilkesbarre 3949 773 1196 136 .302 6 Erie 4018 751 1214 194 .302 8 Troy 2775 588 821 97 .295 9 Scranton 1269 200 372 154 .293 10 Yonkers 735 118 220 28 .288 —————————————————————————————————————-

CLUB FIELDING AVERAGES. ——————————————————————————————- P P A e u s E r t s r i r C O s o e u t r n t s s t No. CLUB. . . . . ——————————————————————————————- 1 Providence 2825 1357 257 .942 2 Erie 2776 1399 281 .936 3 Troy 1968 940 194 .934 3 Springfield 2779 1286 285 .934 5 Syracuse 2754 1380 310 .930 6 Buffalo 3011 1442 369 .923 7 Wilkes-Barre 2457 1191 354 .918 8 Binghamton 1916 967 276 .916 9 Yonkers 410 263 68 .902 10 Scranton 794 357 138 .892 —————————————————————————————————————-



The Presidents of the National League.

This is the twentieth year of the existence of the National League, and in all that time but four members of the League have occupied the presidential chair, viz., Morgan G. Bulkeley, ex-Governor of Connecticut; the last W.A. Hulbert; A.G. Mills, the leading spirit of the great New York Athletic Club, and N.E. Young, the present highly-esteemed and worthy President of the League. Mr. Bulkeley served during 1876; Mr. Hulbert from 1876 to his death in 1882; Mr. Mills from that date up to 1884, when business requirements led to his resignation, and Mr. Young since then. From the organization of the National League in 1876 to the day of his death, Mr. Hulbert was the great moving spirit in the reforms in the government of the professional clubs of the country, which marked the period from 1876 to the eighties. It was his influence, largely, which led to the war upon the "crookedness" which marked the early years of professional base ball history, in which pool gambling was the potent factor. It took years of cohesive and even arbitrary legislation to eliminate the poison of the pool rooms from the professional system, but success was finally achieved, and to the late President Hulbert and his able coadjutors in the League does the credit of this success belong. During the League regime, under President Mills, the great union safety compact, known as the National Agreement, sprang into existence, and its author—Mr. Mills—at this day has reason to be proud of the good work he did for professional ball playing, and for the benefit of the game at large, in the perfecting of this bond of union between the reputable clubs of the professional fraternity. The wisdom of the measure, as a protection against the abuses of "revolving" and "contract breaking," has been very strikingly shown by court decisions which oblige professional clubs to depend entirely upon base ball law, and not the common law, for the preservation of their club rights in contracting with players for their services on the field. Since Mr. Mills left the League arena he has done most efficient service in conserving the best interests of the New York Athletic Club and those of the clubs of the Amateur Athletic Union at large.