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 Gh G ri P C L r aB l C i i o a nW a N a B l t S n u n do l e d r P e t C t c i P d PWASHINGTON 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 rvs. L m Y s p k o c l u c o n i o c o co o o t h l t e a r a u a l t e t es r r o i y a n n g g i t l a n a nPitchers 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 .667L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1Maul W 1 0 1 1 1 4 .267 1 1 1 0 2 2 7 .636 11 .423L 2 3 3 2 1 11 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 15Mercer W 0 0 2 2 1 5 .294 0 3 1 2 1 4 11 .500 16 .410L 4 3 1 0 4 12 4 2 1 1 2 1 11 23Esper W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .400 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 .400 6 .400L 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 1 6 9Stockdale W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 .625 5 .357L 2 2 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 9Petty W 0 1 0 0 0 1 .125 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 .667 3 .273L 3 1 1 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8Sullivan W 0 1 0 0 0 1 .167 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .167 2 .167L 0 1 1 2 1 5 0 1 2 0 1 1 5 10Wynne W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Anderson W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2Stephens W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3Boyd W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 3Haddock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 4—————————————————————————————————————-
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 Gh G ri W P C r aB l a C i i a nW a N a B s l t S n n do l e d r h P e t C t c P d PLOUISVILLE 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 rvs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c o n o c o co o o t h l t t e a r a u a t e t es r r o i y o a n n g g i t a n a nPitchers 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 .355L 2 4 1 2 1 2 12 3 1 2 0 2 8 20Menafee W 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 .286 3 1 0 1 1 6 .375 8 .348L 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 4 1 2 2 10 15Inks W 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .250L 1 1 1 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6Knell W 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 .190 0 0 0 1 2 3 .375 7 .241L 3 4 4 1 3 2 17 1 1 2 1 0 5 22Wadsworth W 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 .200 0 0 0 1 0 1 .167 4 .190L 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 1 5 17Stratton W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 0 1 .167 1 .143L 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 4 6Whitrock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1Sullivan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1Kilroy W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000L 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 2Base hits off 9 5 7Runs earned off 3 2 3Bases on balls by 4 2 1Wild pitches by 0 1 1Hit batsmen by 0 1 1Struck 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 thatstrategic skill, and that equally important attribute, thorough control of temper, together with the avoidance of the senselesskicking habitin 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.
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, 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. 1NAME. AnsonCLUB. ChicagoGames Played. 134Times at Bat. 515Runs Scored. 101Ave. Per Game. 0.75First Base Hits. 177Percentage. .343Total Bases. 52Ave. Per Game. 1.88Bases Stolen. 28Ave. Per Game. 0.20———————————————
SEASON OF 1889.———————————————Rank. 1NAME. BrouthersCLUB. BostonGames. 126Per cent. ofBase Hits. .373Stolen Bases. 22Sacrifice Hits. 31No. 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. 1NAME. HamiltonCLUB. PhiladelphiaGames Played. 133Runs Scored. 42Per cent. .338———————————————
SEASON OF 1892.———————————————Rank. 1NAME. ChildsCLUB. ClevelandGames Played. 144Times at Bat. 552Runs Scored. 135Base Hits. 185Per cent. .335Total Bases. 233Sacrifice Hits. 14Stolen Bases. 31———————————————
SEASON OF 1893.———————————————Rank. 1NAME. StenzelCLUB. PittsburghGames Played. 51Times at Bat. 198Runs Scored. 56Base Hits. 81Per cent. .409Total Bases. 113Sacrifice Hits. 12Stolen Bases. 13———————————————
SEASON OF 1894.———————————————Rank. 1NAME. DuffyCLUB. BostonGames Played. 124Times at Bat. 539Runs Scored. 160Base Hits. 236Per cent. .438Total Bases. 372Sacrifice Hits. 10Stolen 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 RunnersForwarded by Base Hits.Per cent. of Base Hits toTimes at Bat.Per cent. of Sacrifice Hits perGame.Per cent. of Runs per Game.Per cent. of Bases Taken onBalls.Per cent. of Outs on Strikes.Per cent. of Chances Givenfor 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
——————————————————————————————————-PeA rG t Ba R a cm B u s e T S Se a n e n . . .s t s s t B H BNAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-Duffy Boston 124 539 160 236 .438 372 10 49Turner Philadelphia 77 347 94 147 .423 187 8 12Thompson Philadelphia 102 458 115 185 .403 314 8 29Delehanty Philadelphia 114 497 149 199 .400 283 5 29Hamilton Philadelphia 131 559 196 223 .398 289 7 99Anson Chicago 83 347 87 137 .394 188 7 17Kelley Baltimore 129 509 167 199 .391 304 19 45Cross Philadelphia 120 543 128 211 .388 290 16 28Tenny Boston 24 80 21 31 .387 43 2 7Holliday Cincinnati 122 519 125 199 .383 297 4 39Brodie Baltimore 129 574 132 212 .369 269 24 50Doyle New York 105 425 94 157 .369 216 4 48Keeler Baltimore 128 593 164 218 .367 305 16 30Griffin Brooklyn 106 405 123 148 .365 209 5 48Childs Cleveland 117 476 144 174 .365 227 4 20Grady Philadelphia 50 187 45 68 .363 100 2 3Dahlen Chicago 121 508 150 184 .362 289 10 49Ryan Chicago 108 481 133 173 .359 233 8 12Burns Brooklyn 126 513 107 184 .358 261 9 29Burkett Cleveland 124 518 134 185 .357 267 10 32McKean Cleveland 130 561 115 199 .354 281 11 32Smith Pittsburgh 125 497 129 175 .352 267 10 37Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 523 148 184 .351 303 5 60Earle Brooklyn and Louisville 33 114 23 40 .350 47 4 5Stratton Chicago and Louisville 33 134 39 47 .350 77 0 8McCarthy Boston 126 536 118 187 .349 266 9 40Nicol Louisville 28 112 12 39 .348 53 1 2Robinson Baltimore 106 420 71 146 .348 182 11 13Davis New York 124 492 124 170 .345 267 9 37——————————————————————————————————-PeA rG t Ba R a cm B u s e T S Se a n e n . . .s t s s t B H BNAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-Brouthers Baltimore 123 528 137 182 .344 287 18 40Joyce Washington 98 357 103 124 .344 230 5 23Beckley Pittsburgh 132 534 122 184 .344 284 22 20Clements Philadelphia 47 172 26 59 .343 85 3 04Mullane Baltimore and Cleveland 18 67 3 23 .343 27 1 2Gleason Baltimore and St. Louis 31 111 24 38 .342 55 4 1Miller St. Louis 125 480 93 164 .341 223 8 20Lowe Boston 133 615 585 210 .341 323 9 25McGraw Baltimore 123 515 115 175 .340 221 14 77Daly Brooklyn 123 494 135 167 .338 237 4 53Inks Baltimore and Louisville 24 89 12 27 .337 30 1 1Sullivan Washington & Philadelphia 93 374 72 126 .337 166 7 15Connaughton Boston 38 166 38 56 .337 76 1 2Bannon Boston 127 496 130 167 .336 257 6 42Stivetts Boston 57 244 56 82 .336 133 3 4Treadway Brooklyn 122 482 124 162 .336 254 12 29Sugden Pittsburgh 39 141 24 47 .333 70 6 3VanHaltren New York 139 531 110 177 .333 231 13 44Jennings Baltimore 128 505 136 168 .332 246 18 36Taylor Philadelphia 34 145 21 48 .331 63 0 3Wilmot Chicago 135 606 137 201 .331 294 14 76LaChance Brooklyn 65 258 47 85 .329 129 3 25Wilson New York 45 179 37 59 .329 77 2 9Parrott Cincinnati 59 228 50 75 .329 126 1 5Tucker Boston 122 503 112 165 .328 212 2 19Hallman Philadelphia 119 519 111 170 .327 207 22 27Hassamer Washington 116 493 106 161 .326 243 10 15Lange Chicago 112 447 87 145 .324 119 4 71Long Boston 103 475 136 154 .324 240 8 25Terry Chicago 25 96 19 31 .323 39 0 3Hutchinson Chicago 34 133 28 43 .323 64 2 1McPhee Cincinnati 128 481 113 154 .320 230 6 31Shock Brooklyn 63 237 46 76 .320 94 8 18O'Connor Cleveland 80 324 67 105 .320 146 4 13Abbey Washington 129 521 95 166 .318 243 13 30Kittredge Chicago 50 167 36 53 .317 65 5 2Twineham St. Louis 31 127 22 40 .314 50 1 2Connor New York and St. Louis 121 462 93 145 .313 253 6 15Latham Cincinnati 130 532 132 167 .313 233 11 62Hoy Cincinnati 128 506 118 158 .312 241 11 30Hartman Pittsburgh 49 186 41 58 .311 82 8 12Lyons Pittsburgh 72 254 51 79 .311 113 11 17Foutz Brooklyn 73 296 41 92 .310 126 8 16Decker Chicago 89 391 76 121 .309 177 2 22Vaughn Cincinnati 67 275 48 85 .309 145 2 6Selbach Washington 96 372 70 115 .309 188 3 23Stockdale Washington 19 75 9 23 .306 25 1 2Donovan Pittsburgh 133 575 146 176 .306 230 26 51Reitz Baltimore 109 450 86 138 .306 226 7 18Ely St. Louis 127 508 85 155 .305 237 13 23O. Tebeau Cleveland 119 501 79 153 .305 200 9 27McGuire Washington 102 427 67 130 .304 176 4 11——————————————————————————————————-PeA rG t Ba R a cm B u s e T S Se a n e n . . .s t s s t B H BNAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-Chamberlain Cincinnati 20 69 10 21 .304 36 3 1Ward Washington 89 343 85 104 .303 130 5 36Gumbert Pittsburgh 33 112 18 34 .303 52 1 1Corcoran Brooklyn 129 573 124 173 .302 251 10 33Irwin Chicago 130 503 85 152 .302 220 4 34Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 527 88 159 .301 217 20 20Anderson Brooklyn 16 63 13 19 .301 29 1 7Bonner Baltimore 27 113 26 34 .301 46 2 11Hawke Baltimore 25 93 12 28 .301 37 5 2German New York 19 60 8 18 .300 19 2 1Merritt Boston and Cincinnati 66 243 38 73 .300 100 1 5Shindle Brooklyn 117 476 96 143 .300 201 17 18Kennedy Brooklyn 42 160 22 48 .300 61 6 5Burke New York 138 575 124 172 .299 225 10 47Cooley St. Louis 52 207 35 62 .299 71 6 8Kinslow Brooklyn 61 221 38 66 .298 91 2 6McAleer Cleveland 64 251 36 75 .298 99 5 17Pfeffer Louisville 104 420 66 125 .297 182 15 33Flaherty Louisville 38 149 15 44 .295 55 1 2Dungan Louisville and Chicago 18 71 11 20 .295 23 1 3Mercer Washington 43 163 29 48 .294 61 1 10Nash Boston 132 510 132 150 .294 212 3 19Canavan Cincinnati 100 362 81 106 .293 201 5 15Lake Louisville 16 41 8 12 .292 18 0 2Cartwright Washington 132 509 86 149 .292 238 3 35Boyle Philadelphia 116 512 103 150 .291 203 18 22Grimm Louisville 107 413 65 120 .290 182 8 14Smith Louisville 39 135 27 39 .288 56 1 13Blake Cleveland 73 300 51 86 .286 113 10 1McMahon Baltimore 34 129 17 37 .286 46 8 1Shugart Pittsburgh 133 533 103 152 .285 236 13 23Knell Louisville 31 119 10 34 .285 47 1 2Zimmer Cleveland 88 340 55 97 .285 141 2 15Fuller New York 95 378 82 107 .283 138 0 34Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 332 47 94 .283 123 13 20Nichols Boston 45 170 40 48 .282 64 2 1Tiernan New York 112 429 87 121 .282 184 6 26Farrell New York 112 404 50 114 .282 175 3 10Meekin New York 48 174 26 49 .281 80 1 4Ganzel Boston 65 266 52 74 .278 98 4 1Carsey Philadelphia 32 126 31 35 .277 40 1 3Rusie New York 49 185 20 51 .275 74 2 4Shiebeck Pittsburgh & Washington 75 294 69 81 .275 102 1 19Clark Louisville 76 316 55 87 .275 132 1 24Peitz St. Louis 100 364 62 100 .274 159 7 17Quinn St. Louis 106 411 58 113 .274 142 13 26Denny Louisville 60 222 26 61 .274 87 6 10Hawley St. Louis 48 161 16 44 .273 68 5 1Reilly Philadelphia 36 132 21 37 .272 42 1 6O'Rourke Louisville & St. Louis 80 316 60 86 .272 106 6 11McGarr Cleveland 127 522 94 142 .272 185 5 34Murphy New York 73 284 65 77 .271 89 2 25——————————————————————————————————-PeA rG t Ba R a cm B u s e T S Se a n e n . . .s t s s t B H BNAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-Ryan Boston 49 203 39 55 .271 87 1 4Virtue Cleveland 23 85 15 23 .270 80 2 1Clarke Baltimore 27 100 18 27 .270 40 3 1Dwyer Cincinnati 49 171 32 46 .269 72 0 0Schriver Chicago 94 356 56 96 .269 123 5 9Dailey Brooklyn 65 230 39 62 .269 89 6 4Murphy Cincinnati 76 265 42 71 .268 89 6 5Dowd St. Louis 123 524 92 141 .267 185 9 34McCarthy Cincinnati 40 168 29 45 .267 60 4 3Smith Cincinnati 128 492 73 131 .266 207 3 12G. Tebeau Washington and Cleveland 105 398 77 106 .266 147 11 34Twitchell Louisville 51 211 28 56 .265 86 9 9Comiskey Cincinnati 59 230 26 61 .265 73 4 9Hogan St. Louis 29 103 11 27 .262 37 3 7Ward New York 136 552 99 145 .262 168 20 41Stein Brooklyn 41 142 31 37 .260 59 4 3Mack Pittsburgh 63 229 32 59 .257 70 14 9Killen Pittsburgh 24 82 14 21 .256 26 1 1Hemming Louisville and Baltimore 38 152 23 39 .256 67 0 2Richardson Louisville 116 427 50 109 .255 134 4 11Ewing Cleveland 53 212 32 54 .255 82 2 19Allen Philadelphia 40 154 27 39 .253 60 3 5Cuppy Cleveland 41 134 28 34 .253 47 1 4Buckley St. Louis & Philadelphia 67 251 24 64 .251 87 18 0Brown Louisville 130 542 123 136 .251 213 14 74Weaver Louisville & Pittsburgh 90 355 35 89 .250 119 12 9Frank St. Louis 80 321 53 89 .246 130 12 12Parrott Chicago 126 532 83 130 .244 175 9 34Griffith Chicago 41 139 29 34 .244 44 0 6Wadsworth Louisville 23 74 9 18 .243 25 1 0Esper Washington and Baltimore 25 96 16 23 .239 35 0 0Staley Boston 25 88 12 21 .238 31 2 0Wittrock Cincinnati 18 64 8 15 .234 17 0 0Gilbert Brooklyn and Louisville 34 133 14 31 .233 39 1 3Maul Washington 35 120 23 28 .233 42 1 1Radford Washington 93 330 61 77 .233 101 6 26Breitenstein St. Louis 53 179 27 41 .229 53 9 3McGill Chicago 23 83 11 19 .229 24 1 1Sullivan Washington and Cleveland 26 101 10 23 .228 33 0 0Daub Brooklyn 28 97 13 22 .226 26 4 1Dugdale Washington 33 129 15 28 .217 38 0 6Colcolough Pittsburgh 19 70 10 15 .214 21 1 1Young Cleveland 48 183 24 40 .213 61 0 4Motz Cincinnati 18 68 8 14 .205 19 0 1Clarkson Cleveland 16 54 7 11 .204 14 4 0Menafee Louisville & Pittsburgh 37 125 12 25 .200 31 10 4Lutenburg Louisville 70 255 44 49 .192 66 3 10Clarkson St. Louis 26 85 11 16 .188 16 0 1Ehret Pittsburgh 41 133 6 23 .172 30 10 0Weyhing Philadelphia 33 119 9 20 .168 26 7 1Westervelt New York 18 59 9 9 .152 11 2 1——————————————————————————————————-
[Illustration: Cincinnati Base Ball Club, '94.][Illustration: St. Louis Base Ball Club, '94.][Illustration: Washington Base Ball Club, '94.][Illustration: The League's Leading Players, 1894.]
Fielding Record, 1894. ————————————
FIRST BASEMEN.——————————————————————————————————-Pu A C Pt s E h eG s r T a ra O i r o n cm u s o t c ee t t r a e ns s s s l s tRANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-1 Motz Cincinnati 18 185 18 1 204 .9952 Anson Chicago 83 748 45 9 802 .9883 Tucker Boston 122 1114 70 19 1203 .9844 O. Tebeau Cleveland 107 1025 47 18 1090 .9835 Boyle Philadelphia 116 983 64 20 1067 .9816 Vaughn Cincinnati 19 186 11 4 201 .980Cartright Washington 132 1227 72 36 1335 .9807 Foutz Brooklyn 73 659 36 15 710 .9798 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 1236 82 31 1349 .977La Chance Brooklyn 56 503 13 12 528 .9779 Connor New York and St. Louis 120 1084 81 28 1193 .976Decker Chicago 48 433 16 11 460 .97610 Lutenburg Louisville 68 595 34 16 645 .975Brouthers Baltimore 123 1180 65 31 1276 .97511 Comiskey Cincinnati 59 558 26 16 600 .973O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St. L. 30 270 22 8 300 .97312 Doyle New York 99 987 60 33 1080 .969McCarthy Cincinnati 15 146 13 5 164 .96913 G. Tebeau Washington, Cleveland 16 161 2 9 172 .948——————————————————————————————————-
SECOND BASEMEN.——————————————————————————————————-Pu A C Pt s E h eG s r T a ra O i r o n cm u s o t c ee t t r a e ns s s s l s tRANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-1 Reitz Baltimore 100 252 344 21 627 .9662 Quinn St. Louis 106 344 342 33 719 .9543 McPhee Cincinnati 128 391 449 53 893 .9404 Pfeffer Louisville 89 264 283 35 582 .9395 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 308 462 52 822 .9366 Hallman Philadelphia 119 314 342 47 703 .9337 Lowe Boston 132 354 411 57 822 .9308 Parrott Chicago 125 291 384 52 727 .9289 Childs Cleveland 117 308 380 56 744 .92410 Ward New York 136 332 455 67 854 .92111 Grimm Louisville 24 59 75 12 146 .91812 Ward Washington 79 175 237 40 452 .91113 Bonner Baltimore 24 57 54 10 121 .90914 Daly Brooklyn 128 320 358 74 752 .90115 Radford Washington 21 62 60 14 136 .89716 Miller St. Louis 18 31 49 11 91 .879——————————————————————————————————-
THIRD BASEMEN.——————————————————————————————————-Pu A C Pt s E h eG s r T a ra O i r o n cm u s o t c ee t t r a e ns s s s l s tRANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-1 Nash Boston 132 199 271 34 504 .9322 McGarr Cleveland 127 171 246 35 452 .9223 Cross Philadelphia 100 177 240 40 457 .91*4 Davis New York 124 154 251 40 445 .9165 Dahlen Chicago 55 95 127 23 245 .9066 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 120 158 30 308 .9027 Peitz St. Louis 43 61 69 15 145 .8968 McGarr Baltimore 117 130 246 44 420 .8959 Shindle Brooklyn 117 190 232 50 472 .89410 Reilly Philadelphia 27 35 55 12 102 .88211 Flaherty Louisville 38 43 75 16 134 .88012 Hartman Pittsburgh 49 65 96 23 184 .87513 Hassamer Washington 30 64 79 21 164 .87214 Latham Cincinnati 129 163 256 64 483 .86715 Denny Louisville 60 84 124 32 240 .86616 Joyce Washington 98 151 184 52 387 .86517 Miller St. Louis 52 71 97 33 201 .83518 Irwin Chicago 68 90 125 43 258 .83319 Gilbert Brooklyn and Louisville 31 56 61 24 141 .82920 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St.L. 21 30 39 15 84 .821——————————————————————————————————-
SHORT STOPS.——————————————————————————————————-Pu A C Pt s E h eG s r T a ra O i r o n cm u s o t c ee t t r a e ns s s s l s tRANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-1 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 195 300 35 530 .9342 Jennings Baltimore 128 307 497 62 866 .9283 Richardson Louisville 107 236 363 50 649 .9234 Smith Cincinnati 128 234 523 72 829 .9134 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 282 446 69 797 .9135 McKean Cleveland 130 278 401 66 745 .9116 Allen Philadelphia 40 93 130 23 246 .9077 Connaughton Boston 32 60 105 18 183 .9018 Ely St. Louis 127 279 444 82 805 .8989 Dahlen Chicago 66 191 257 52 500 .89610 Long Boston 99 223 371 71 665 .89311 Sullivan Washington and Phila. 83 199 232 52 483 .89211 Irwin Chicago 62 122 219 41 382 .89212 Murphy New York 48 112 148 34 294 .88413 Shiebeck Pittsburgh and Wash. 62 130 230 48 408 .88214 Fuller New York 91 211 309 71 591 .87915 Pfeffer Louisville 15 30 63 13 106 .87716 Radford Washington 47 127 184 53 364 .85117 Selbach Washington 18 52 52 23 127 .818——————————————————————————————————-
OUTFIELDERS——————————————————————————————————-Pu A C Pt s E h eG s r T a ra O i r o n cm u s o t c ee t t r a e ns s s s l s tRANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . .——————————————————————————————————-1 Dungan Louisville and Chicago 18 30 3 1 34 .9702 Griffin Brooklyn 106 298 13 12 323 .9633 Hamilton Philadelphia 131 363 16 15 394 .9613 Thompson Philadelphia 102 163 11 7 181 .9614 Weaver Louisville and Pitts. 35 59 8 3 70 .9575 McAleer Cleveland 64 173 10 9 192 .9536 Kelley Baltimore 129 274 19 15 308 .9517 Brodie Baltimore 129 311 11 19 341 .9448 Shock Brooklyn 34 89 11 6 106 .9439 Burns Brooklyn 126 212 16 14 242 .94210 Hogan St. Louis 29 43 5 3 51 .94111 Blake Cleveland 73 122 17 9 148 .93911 O'Connor Cleveland 31 85 8 6 99 .93912 Delehanty Philadelphia 85 224 21 16 261 .93813 Smith Pittsburgh 125 271 18 20 309 .93514 Tiernan New York 112 170 11 13 194 .93315 Donovan Pittsburgh 133 267 24 21 312 .93216 Dowd St. Louis 115 201 16 16 233 .93117 Keeler Baltimore 127 220 27 19 266 .92818 Radford Washington 22 30 8 3 41 .92719 Ewing Cleveland 52 91 7 8 106 .92419 Selbach Washington 76 153 7 13 173 .92420 Duffy Boston 123 313 23 28 364 .92321 Burke New York 138 269 16 23 308 .92222 Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 317 22 30 369 .91822 Canavan Cincinnati 94 191 10 18 219 .91823 Holliday Cincinnati 121 247 26 25 298 .91624 Brown Louisville 130 327 23 33 383 .91424 McCarthy Cincinnati 25 46 7 5 58 .91425 Burkett Cleveland 124 242 18 24 284 .91226 VanHaltren New York 139 309 28 33 370 .91126 Shugart St. Louis 119 276 23 27 326 .91127 Abbey Washington 129 341 26 36 403 .91027 Hassamer Washington 68 102 10 11 123 .91028 Turner Philadelphia 77 143 7 15 165 .90929 McCarthy Boston 124 286 30 32 348 .90830 Smith Louisville 39 64 2 7 73 .90430 Ryan Chicago 108 222 23 26 271 .90431 Lange Chicago 110 278 30 33 341 .90332 Twitchell Louisville 51 104 14 13 131 .90033 Hoy Cincinnati 128 322 27 41 390 .89534 Treadway Brooklyn 122 274 20 36 330 .89135 Clark Louisville 76 166 14 23 203 .88636 Frank St. Louis 77 159 11 23 193 .88037 G. Tebeau Wash'n and Cleveland 87 182 8 26 216 .87938 Murphy New York 20 32 3 5 40 .87538 Virtue Cleveland 20 38 4 6 48 .87539 Bannon Boston 127 243 42 41 326 .87440 Wilmont Chicago 135 262 17 46 325 .85841 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St.L. 18 34 2 6 42 .85742 Decker Chicago 30 55 9 11 75 .85343 Cooley St. Louis 38 73 1 14 88 .84044 Nicol Louisville 26 33 3 7 43 .83745 Anderson Brooklyn 15 21 0 6 27 .777——————————————————————————————————-
CATCHERS' AVERAGES.————————————————————————————————————P P Tu A a o C Pt s E s t h eG s r s B a a ra O i r e a l n cm u s o d l c ee t t r l e ns s s s s s tRANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . .————————————————————————————————————1 Zimmer Cleveland 88 285 107 16 13 421 .9312 Clements Philadelphia 47 182 38 11 7 238 .9243 Buckley Philadelphia, St. Louis 66 249 72 18 12 351 .9143 Robinson Baltimore 106 364 96 24 19 503 .9144 Mack Pittsburgh 63 274 59 22 15 370 .9005 Merritt Boston, Pitts., Cinn 61 177 72 16 13 278 .8956 Schriver Chicago 86 294 93 34 13 434 .8917 Grimm Louisville 75 262 104 29 16 411 .8908 Miller St. Louis 39 138 36 12 10 196 .887Murphy Cincinnati 74 197 69 29 5 300 .887Farrell New York 103 470 138 41 36 685 .8879 Kittredge Chicago 50 209 40 20 13 282 .88310 Vaughn Cincinnati 41 155 43 19 8 225 .880Dailey Brooklyn 58 217 62 21 17 317 .88011 Ganzel Boston 55 188 57 24 10 279 .87812 Sugden Pittsburgh 30 104 28 12 7 151 .87413 Earle Brooklyn and Lousiville 31 89 42 6 13 150 .87314 Twineham St. Louis 31 147 35 9 18 209 .87015 O'Connor Cleveland 42 160 37 12 20 229 .86016 McGuire Washington 102 288 116 39 28 471 .85717 Clarke Baltimore 22 86 21 10 8 125 .856Ryan Boston 49 166 49 18 18 251 .85618 Peitz St. Louis 38 153 52 13 11 229 .85119 Tenny Boston 18 55 18 11 3 87 .83920 Wilson New York 32 119 22 20 9 170 .82921 Weaver Louisville and Pitts. 30 88 27 11 15 141 .81522 Kinslow Brooklyn 61 114 47 19 23 203 .79323 Grady Philadelphia 38 101 30 21 20 172 .76124 Dugdale Washington 30 75 38 20 10 143 .720————————————————————————————————————