INTRODUCTION. (continued 3)

AUGUST RECORD. ————————————————————————————————- P P P e P e l r l r L a c L a c W o y e W o y e o s e n o s e n Clubs. n t d t Clubs. n t d t ————————————————————————————————- Baltimore 69 36 105 .657 Pittsburgh 52 54 106 .491 Boston 69 38 107 .645 Chicago 49 58 107 .458 New York 69 39 108 .639 Cincinnati 46 60 106 .434 Philadelphia 59 46 105 .562 St. Louis 44 63 107 .411 Brooklyn 56 49 105 .533 Washington 37 71 108 .343 Cleveland 55 49 104 .529 Louisville 32 74 106 .302 ————————————————————————————————-

By the close of the August campaign the Baltimore club had regained the position in the van, and afterward they were not headed. Then began an exciting struggle between the Boston champions and the "Giants" for second place, but it was not until September 6th that the "Giants" led the "Champions," and then only by the percentage figures of .652 to .646. Baltimore leading at that date with but .676, so it will be seen that the fight between those three was nip and tuck after the end of August. At that time the "Phillies," the Brooklyns and the Clevelands were struggling equally hard for fourth place, the "Phillies" leading, with Brooklyn fifth and Cleveland sixth. By this time Washington had comfortably buried the Louisvilles in the last ditch, and no resurrection followed.

THE SEPTEMBER CAMPAIGN RECORD.

The feature of the last monthly campaign of the championship season was the fight for second place between Boston and New York. When the campaign began Baltimore led with the percentage figures of .667, and it was an exceedingly close fight between the "Champions" and "Giants," the former leading the latter by the percentage figures of .645 to .643 on September 3d. The "Phillies," Brooklyns and Clevelands were the next three in the first division, all three being in the five hundreds in percentage points.

Here is the month's record:

THE SEPTEMBER RECORD. —————————————————————————————————————- Date. Contesting Clubs. City. Pitchers. Score. —————————————————————————————————————- Sept 1 New York vs. Cincinnati New York German Whitrock 8-6 " 1 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Stein Hemming 6-5 " 1 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Kennedy Wadsworth 20-7 " 1 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Baltimore Gleason Cuppy 5-2 " 1 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis Philadelphia Carsey Hawley 19-9 " 1 Washington vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Mercer Menafee 11-4 " 1 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Ehret Mercer 15-6 " 1 Chicago vs. Boston Chicago Terry Stivetts 15-6 " 1 Cincinnati vs. New York New York Dwyer Meekin 8-6 " 1 St. Louis vs. Philadelphia Philadelphia Breitenst'n Fanning 8-6 " 2 No games scheduled " 3 New York vs. Cincinnati New York Meekin Fournier 16-2 " 3 New York vs. Cincinnati New York Rusie Dwyer 6-4 " 3 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Lucid Knell 6-4 " 3 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Brooklyn Daub Inks 9-3 " 3 Boston vs. Chicago Boston Staley Griffith 5-4 " 3 Boston vs. Chicago Boston Nichols Hutchinson 11-4 " 3 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Baltimore Esper Sullivan 13-2 " 3 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Baltimore Hawke Young 10-3 " 3 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis Philadelphia Weyhing Breitenst'n 8-1 " 3 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis Philadelphia Jones Hawley 6-4 " 3 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Gumbert Maul 22-1 " 4 New York vs. Pittsburgh New York Meekin Menafee 14-13 " 4 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Brooklyn Cuppy Stein 8-0 " 4 Boston vs. Louisville Boston Stivetts Knell 20-11 " 4 Baltimore vs. Chicago Baltimore Hemming Terry 9-3 " 4 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Taylor Whitrock 6-2 " 4 St. Louis vs. Washington Washington Breitenst'n Haddock 10-7 " 5 New York vs. Pittsburgh New York Rusie Ehret 4-0 " 5 Brooklyn vs. Cleveland Brooklyn Kennedy Young 2-1 " 5 Boston vs. Louisville Boston Nichols Wadsworth 7-6 " 5 Baltimore vs. Chicago Baltimore Gleason Hutchinson 12-3 " 5 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Carsey Dwyer 15-6 " 5 Washington vs. St. Louis Washington St'kdale A.Cl'kson[1] 7-4 " 6 New York vs. Pittsburgh New York Meekin Gumbert 6-5 " 6 Baltimore vs. Chicago Baltimore Hawke Griffith 14-6 " 6 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Weyhing Fischer 14-7 " 6 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Philadelphia Taylor Whitrock 16-2 " 6 Washington vs. St. Louis Washington Mercer Breitenstein 12-2 " 6 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Brooklyn Sullivan Lucid 13-2 " 6 Louisville vs. Boston Boston Inks Staley 15-10 " 7 No games scheduled " 8 Boston vs. Chicago Chicago Nichols Hutchinson 3-1 " 8 Baltimore vs. Louisville Louisville Gleason Knell 6-3 " 8 Brooklyn vs. St. Louis St. Louis Stein Hawley 6-1 " 8 Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Menafee Weyhing 13-7 " 8 Cincinnati vs. Washington Cincinnati Dwyer Haddock 14-9 " 9 St. Louis vs. Brooklyn St. Louis Br'tsenst'n Kennedy 7-5 " 9 Brooklyn vs. St. Louis St. Louis Kennedy Hawley 11-7 " 9 Baltimore vs. Louisville Louisville Hemming Wadsworth 9-4 " 9 Cleveland vs. Chicago Chicago Cuppy McGill 9-5 " 9 Cincinnati vs. Washington Cincinnati Whitrock Mercer 4-1 " 9 Cincinnati vs. Washington Cincinnati Fisher Stockdale 7-6 " 10 New York vs. Cleveland Cleveland Rusie Sullivan 13-4 " 10 Boston vs. Chicago Chicago Stivetts Terry 25-8 " 10 Baltimore vs. Louisville Louisville Esper Inks 15-6 " 11 Cleveland vs. New York Cleveland Young Meekin 13-3 " 11 New York vs. Cleveland Cleveland Meekin Cuppy 9-1 " 11 Chicago vs. Boston Chicago Hutchinson Staley 17-2 " 11 Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Colcolough Taylor 9-7 " 11 Pittsburgh vs. Philadelphia Pittsburgh Ehret Johnson 9-8 " 12 Brooklyn vs. Chicago Chicago Stein McGill 12-8 " 12 Philadelphia vs. Louisville Louisville Carsey Knell 5-3 " 12 Baltimore vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Gleason Dwyer 16-2 " 12 Cleveland vs. Boston Cleveland Sullivan Stivetts 9-8 " 12 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Gumbert Haddock 9-6 " 13 New York vs. St. Louis St. Louis Rusie Hawley 7-3 " 13 Brooklyn vs. Chicago Chicago Kennedy Hutchinson 8-3 " 13 Boston vs Cleveland Cleveland Nichols Cuppy 11-4 " 13 Philadelphia vs. Louisville Louisville Weyhing Wadsworth 5-2 " 13 Washington vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Mercer Menafee 11-6 " 14 St. Louis vs. New York St. Louis A.Clarkson Meekin 1-0 " 15 New York vs. St. Louis St. Louis Rusie Breitenstein 7-2 " 15 Boston vs. Cleveland Cleveland Stivetts Wallace 7-2 " 15 Chicago vs. Brooklyn Chicago Hutchinson Lucid 10-3 " 15 Pittsburgh vs. Washington Pittsburgh Gumbert Stockdale 11-6 " 16 Baltimore vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Gleason Dwyer 14-3 " 16 Cincinnati vs. Baltimore Cincinnati Parrott Hawke 4-3 " 16 Washington vs. Louisville Louisville Mercer Inks 7-6 " 16 Chicago vs. Brooklyn Chicago Griffith Stein 13-5 " 17 New York vs. Chicago Chicago Meekin Hutchinson 5-2 " 17 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Hemming Menafee 10-2 " 17 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Esper Ehret 4-1 " 17 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Cleveland Sullivan Kennedy 12-6 " 17 St. Louis vs Boston St. Louis Hawley Nichols 6-5 " 17 Louisville vs. Washington Louisville Knell Haddock 7-6 " 18 New York vs. Chicago Chicago Rusie Terry 4-3 " 18 New York vs Chicago Chicago Meekin Griffith 9-6 " 18 Cleveland vs. Brooklyn Cleveland Young Daub 9-3 " 18 Brooklyn vs. Cleveland Cleveland Lucid Cuppy 7-1 " 18 Baltimore vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Gleason Colcolough 15-8 " 18 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Taylor Fischer 10-4 " 18 Washington vs. Louisville Louisville Mercer Wadsworth 9-4 " 18 St. Louis vs. Boston St. Louis Br'tenst'n Stivetts 5-1 " 19 New York vs. Chicago Chicago Meekin Hutchinson 4-3 " 19 Philadelphia vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Carsey Whitrock 12-11 " 19 Cincinnati vs. Philadelphia Cincinnati Parrott Weyhing 8-3 " 19 St. Louis vs. Boston St. Louis Hawley Stivetts 5-4 " 20 Pittsburgh vs. New York Pittsburgh Menafee Rusie 10-3 " 20 Boston vs. Louisville Louisville Nichols Inks 4-3 " 20 Cleveland vs. Washington Cleveland Wallace Boyd 14-8 " 20 Chicago vs. Philadelphia Chicago Abbey Johnson 20-4 " 21 New York vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Meekin Ehret[2] 4-4 " 21 Boston vs. Louisville Louisville Staley Knell 13-6 " 21 Baltimore vs. St. Louis St. Louis Hemming Breitestein 8-4 " 21 Washington vs. Cleveland Cleveland Mullarky Young 4-3 " 21 Chicago vs. Philadelphia Chicago Hutchinson Taylor 11-5 " 22 New York vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Rusie Colcolough 6-2 " 22 Pittsburgh vs. New York Pittsburgh Ehret German 4-1 " 22 Brooklyn vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Stein Fischer 11-6 " 22 Philadelphia vs. Chicago Chicago Carsey Abbey 9-6 " 22 Baltimore vs. St. Louis St. Louis Esper Hawley 6-4 " 22 Boston vs. Louisville Louisville Stivetts Wadsworth 3-2 " 22 Louisville vs. Boston Louisville Inks 6-4 " 22 Cleveland vs. Washington Cleveland Sullivan Anderson 6-5 " 23 Brooklyn vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Kennedy Whitrock 10-9 " 23 Cincinnati vs. Brooklyn Cincinnati Parrott Daub 3-2 " 23 Washington vs. Chicago Chicago Mullarky Terry 6-5 " 23 Chicago vs. Washington Chicago Griffith Boyd 11-5 " 23 Baltimore vs. St. Louis St. Louis Esper Breitenstein 10-4 " 24 New York vs. Louisville Louisville Meekin Knell 8-7 " 24 Boston vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Stivetts Fischer 7-4 " 24 Cleveland vs. Baltimore Cleveland Cuppy Gleason 12-7 " 24 Pittsburgh vs. Brooklyn Pittsburgh Menafee Stein 10-4 " 24 Chicago vs. Washington Chicago Hutchinson Stockdle 17-5 " 24 Philadelphia vs. St. Louis St. Louis Johnson A.Clarkson 21-1 " 25 New York vs. Louisville Louisville Rusie Wadsworth 15-3 " 25 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Cleveland Esper Young 14-9 " 25 Cincinnati vs. Boston Cincinnati Parrott Nichols 9-7 " 25 Cincinnati vs. Boston Cincinnati Whitrock Hodson 5-1 " 25 St. Louis vs. Philadelphia St. Louis Hawley Figgemeir 14-7 " 25 Pittsburgh vs. Brooklyn Pittsburgh Jordan Kennedy 10-7 " 26 New York vs. Louisville Louisville Meekin Inks 9-5 " 26 Baltimore vs. Cleveland Cleveland Hemming Cuppy 7-6 " 26 Pittsburgh vs. Brooklyn Pittsburgh Colcolo'h Kennedy 9-8 " 26 St. Louis vs. Philadelphia St. Louis Breitestein Johnson 12-6 " 27 New York vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Clark Fischer 11-4 " 27 Boston vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Stivetts Ehret 8-1 " 27 Cleveland vs. Philadelphia Cleveland Young Weyhing 26-4 " 28 New York vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati German Whitrock 9-8 " 28 Pittsburgh vs. Boston Pittsburgh Gumbert Nichols 15-9 " 28 Cleveland vs. Philadelphia Cleveland Wallace Carsey 8-6 " 29 Cincinnati vs. New York Cincinnati Parrott Meekin 7-6 " 29 St. Louis vs. Washington St. Louis Hawley Anderson 6-4 " 29 Chicago vs. Baltimore Chicago Hutchinson Gleason 5-4 " 29 Cleveland vs. Philadelphia Cleveland Sullivan Taylor 11-3 " 29 Boston vs. Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Hodson Menafee 6-5 " 29 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Louisville Stein Knell 11-4 " 30 Baltimore vs. Chicago Chicago Esper Terry 20-9 " 30 Louisville vs. Brooklyn Louisville Wadsworth Daub 10-8 " 30 Brooklyn vs. Louisville Louisville Stein Inks 12-4 " 30 St. Louis vs. Washington St. Louis Br'tenst'n Mullarky 14-2 " 30 St. Louis vs. Washington St. Louis Hawley Boyd 10-4 " 30 Cleveland vs. Cincinnati Cincinnati Cuppy Dwyer 16-16

[Footnote 1: Protested.] [Footnote 2: Forfeited.] —————————————————————————————————————-

THE PITCHING OF 1894.

The pitching of 1894 in the National League arena was in advance of that of 1893, but it has yet to reach the point of perfect work in the box. Somehow or other, managers of teams cannot get it out of their heads that great speed is the principal factor of success in pitching, when the fact is that speed is but an aid to success, secondary in value to that of strategic skill in delivering the ball to the bat.

The experience of the past season in connection with the limit of speed in pitching presents some valuable suggestions which team managers will do well to bear in mind this year. Some years ago, the swift pitching—which had then about reached the highest point of speed—proved to be so costly in its wear and fear upon the catchers that clubs had to engage a corps of reserve catchers, in order to go through a season's campaign with any degree of success. Afterward, however, the introduction of the protective "mitts" led to some relief being afforded the catchers who had been called upon to face the swift pitching of the "cyclone" pitchers of the period. The seasons of 1893 and 1894 were marked by some exhibitions of swift pitching unequaled in the annals of the game, and yet it was not effective in placing the team which held the cyclone pitchers in the lead. If the speed of the ball is too great for catchers to handle, even with the protection the breast pads, masks and the padded gloves of the period afford, why then it is worse than useless. It was skilful, strategic pitching which helped to win the pennant in 1894, and not "cyclone" pitching. Speed is all very well as an important accessory, but without the best of catching to support it, and thorough command of the ball to give it full effect, it is more costly than otherwise.

The Pitching Percentages for 1894.

THE CHAMPION BALTIMORE CLUB'S RECORD.

The complete record of the pitching percentages of victories pitched in, shows that Baltimore's full season's team of pitchers had a general percentage of victories pitched in of .695 by the eight pitchers who occupied the box during the season's campaign. This record excelled the percentage figures of New York's team of five pitchers by 31 points, and that of Boston's seven pitchers by 66 points, the respective percentage figures being, .695, .664 and .629. These figures show the relative strength of the three battery teams, as far as the record of percentage can show them. A better criterion of pitching skill would be, of course, at command, were the scoring rules giving the data of runs earned off the pitching revised properly; but as they were not in 1894, we have to take the next best data at command, that being the percentage of victories pitched in. Taking the records of the first three pitchers named in the Baltimore "battery" team record, as a whole, we do not hesitate to award to McMahon the position of leading pitcher of the club for 1894. Brown led McMahon in percentage of victories against the five Eastern teams, but the former was last on the list against the six Western teams, McMahon's percentage figures against the Western batsmen being .812 against Brown's .500. Against the Eastern teams Brown's figures were .750 to McMahon's .706. But McMahon pitched in 17 games against the Eastern batsmen, to Brown's 4 games only, and that fact counts to McMahon's advantage. Esper stood second in percentage figures against the Western batsmen with the percentage of .889 in 9 games to McMahon's .812 in 16 games. Gleason stood third against the Eastern teams with .625 to McMahon's .706; but against the West, Gleason was fourth, with the percentage of .769 to McMahon's .812. Hawke did service against the West with .688 to .556 against the East. Inks and Mullane stood even at .667 against the West, but Inks led Mullane by .511 to .500 against the East, Horner only pitched in one game. Here is a full record of the eight pitchers of the Baltimore team of 1894, showing what each pitcher did against the Eastern and Western batsmen separately, in victories and defeats against each club, and in percentage of victories pitched in against the batsmen of each section. It is a valuable record, if only in its showing what each pitcher did in the way of victories, against each club of each division.

THE BALTIMORE CLUB'S RECORD. —————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P h i W P C L l a C i i o W N a B s l t S n u o e d r h P e t C t c i P BALTIMORE n w B e o i e v s h . i s e / o l o n T r e b i L n v T r vs. L Y s p k g o c l u c o n i o c o o t h l t t e a r a u a l t e s r o i y o a n n g g i t l a n Pitchers t k n a n n l t Pitchers d h o s i e l t —————————————————————————————————————— Brown W 0 0 1 1 1 3 .750 Hemming 1 1 1 1 0 1 5 1.000 L 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 McMahon W 2 3 2 2 3 12 .706 Esper 3 1 1 2 0 1 8 .889 L 3 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Gleason W 1 0 1 2 1 5 .625 McMahon 2 0 2 3 3 3 13 .811 L 1 1 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Inks W 1 0 1 0 2 4 .571 Gleason 1 2 2 3 0 2 10 .769 L 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 Hawke W 0 1 0 1 3 5 .556 Hawke 1 1 3 2 2 2 11 .688 L 2 1 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 1 2 1 5 Mullane W 2 0 1 1 1 5 .500 Inks 1 0 0 1 1 1 4 .667 L 0 3 1 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Esper W 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 Mullane 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 .667 L 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Horner W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 Brown 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .500 L 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 —————————————————————————————————————-

It will be seen by the above table that, while Brown did not pitch in a single victory against the two clubs standing next to Baltimore in the race, McMahon pitched in five victories; and yet Brown's percentage figures exceeded McMahon's by .750 to .706 against the five clubs as a whole, owing to McMahon's pitching in five defeats, against Brown's single defeats against the New York and Boston batsmen. Hemming's record is A No. 1, as far as he pitched, but he did not pitch in a single game against the Eastern teams, to the extent of a full record of innings pitched in.

Here is the record for the whole season, showing the total percentage:

THE BALTIMORE PITCHERS' FULL RECORD. —————————————————————————————- Per cent. of Pitchers. Victories. Defeats. Games Pitched. Victories. —————————————————————————————- Hemming 5 0 5 1.000 Esper 9 2 11 .818 McMahon 25 8 33 .758 Gleason 15 6 21 .714 Brown 4 2 6 .667 Hawke 16 9 25 .640 Inks 8 5 13 .615 Mullane 7 6 13 .538 Horner 0 1 1 .000 —————————————————————————————-

These tables include all victories and defeats of the season, whether counted or thrown out. It will be seen that only three pitchers pitched in a majority of the games played.

THE NEW YORK CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.

The New York club, in 1894, went through the season's campaign with the fewest pitchers in their team of any of the twelve clubs. Moreover, their "battery" teams of the season, as a whole, surpassed those of any of the club's previous batteries since the club was organized. Led by Meekin and Farrell—the champion "battery" of 1894—followed by pitchers Rusie, Westervelt, German and Clarke, with catchers Wilson and Doyle, the club presented battery strength sufficient to have carried the team to the goal, but for sundry drawbacks they met with during the early part of the championship campaign, especially during April and May. And handicapped as they were, they managed to close the season in second place, after brilliant rallying work during the last three months of the campaign, when their pitchers were well backed up by better team-work than they had at command up to July.

In giving the record of the work done by the club pitchers, we have deemed it essential to divide the tables up into sections, showing the work done in the box against both the Eastern and Western teams separately, as well as the table showing the aggregate figures of the individual percentages of victories pitched in. Thus it will be seen in the appended table, that while Meekin's pitching was more successful against the batsmen of the Eastern teams, Rusie excelled Meekin in downing the batsmen of the Western teams, by a percentage of victories of .889 against .778 for Meekin. But it should be remembered that in pitching against the batsmen of the three leading teams in the race opposed to them, Meekin pitched in 7 victories out of 11 games, while Rusie only pitched in 6 victories out of 14 games. Against the three most successful of the Western teams, too, Meekin pitched in 13 victories against Rusie's 12. Taking the season's figures as a whole, Meekin led Rusie by the percentage figures of .783 to .735, quite a difference in favor of Meekin. German led Westervelt against the Eastern teams, but the latter led against the Western batsmen, and also had the best percentage figures, in the aggregate of the season, by .498 to German's .471; Clark being in the last ditch in all three tables. Westervelt was a new man in the field compared to German, but he is very likely to excel his last year's record in 1895. The best individual records in victories pitched in by the two leaders, were Rusie's 6 to 0 against Louisville, and Meekin's 3 to 0 against Baltimore. German's best was 2 to 0 against Washington, and Westervelt's was 1 to 0 against Baltimore; Clarke's best being 1 to 0 against Philadelphia.

Here are the records of the pitchers of the team against the five Eastern and the six Western teams for 1894:

THE SECTIONAL RECORDS. —————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P h i W P C L B l a C i i o W a a B s l t S n u o l d r h P e t C t c i P NEW YORK n t B e o i e v s h . i s e / i o l o n T r e b i L n v T r vs. L m s p k g o c l u c o n i o c o o t h l t t e a r a u a l t e s r o i y o a n n g g i t l a n Pitchers t e n a n n l t Pitchers d h o s i e l t —————————————————————————————————————-

Meekin W 3 3 1 3 4 14 .778 Russie 4 4 4 4 2 6 24 .889 L 0 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 Rusie W 2 2 2 3 3 12 .545 Meekin 4 4 5 2 2 5 22 .783 L 2 3 3 1 1 10 1 0 1 1 3 0 6 German W 1 0 1 0 2 4 .500 Westervelt 1 0 1 1 0 1 4 .571 L 1 1 0 2 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 0 3 Westervelt W 0 1 0 1 1 3 .333 German 0 0 1 0 2 1 4 .471 L 2 1 2 1 0 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Clarke W 0 0 1 0 0 1 .333 Clarke 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 .333 L 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE SUMMARY.

The summary giving the full totals of the season's record entire is appended:

—————————————————————————————— Games Per cent. of PITCHERS Victories Defeats Pitched Victories —————————————————————————————— Meekin 36 10 46 .783 Rusie 36 13 49 .735 Westervelt 7 9 16 .498 German 8 9 17 .471 Clarke 2 4 6 .333 ——————————————————————————————

THE BOSTON CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.

While the Boston team of 1893 went through the season of that year with virtually but four pitchers to do their box work—Quarles and Coyle pitching in but three games in 1893—the batteries of the club for 1894 included seven pitchers, two of the seven each pitching in but single games, Nichols, Stivetts and Staley doing the brunt of the work of the past season. Nichols did his best work against the five Eastern teams, he being most effective against Philadelphia and Brooklyn, neither of which clubs won a game with him in the box against them. He also took both Cleveland and Louisville into camp without their being able to win a single game off his pitching, the only team to strike even figures in games against his pitching being the Cincinnatis—3 to 3, Baltimore winning 2 out of 3 with Nichols opposed to them, and New York 2 out of 5, St. Louis also getting the same figures. Beyond question, Nichols led the Boston pitching record of 1894, he ranking in strategic skill with the best in the League. Stivetts excelled even Nichols against the Western batsmen by a percentage of .763 to Nichols' .692; but against the stronger Eastern teams Nichols led Stivetts by the percentage figures of .756 to .417, an advantage more than off-setting the Western figures of the two pitchers. Lovett and Hodson both excelled Stivetts against the Eastern teams, by .714 and .500, respectively, against Stivetts' .417; but against the Western teams, Stivetts led by .763 to Hodson's .600 and Lovett's .500. Staley was very ineffective against the batsmen of both sections. Lampe pitched in but one game, and that one a defeat by Pittsburgh; Stephens pitching, too, in but one game but it was a victory over Washington. Here are the sectional records for the season, together with the column giving the totals of the season:

THE SECTIONAL RECORDS. —————————————————————————————————————— EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a B s l t S n u n d o l e d r h P e t C t c i P d P BOSTON n t w e o i e v s h . i s e e / i l o n T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y p k g o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o h l t t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r i y o a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k a n n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————— Stephens W 0 0 0 0 1 1 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nichols W 1 3 4 4 3 15 .756 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 .692 33 .717 L 2 2 0 0 1 5 0 2 1 2 3 0 8 12 Stivetts W 4 1 0 1 2 8 .471 3 3 3 2 2 4 18 .763 26 .650 L 1 1 3 3 1 9 2 0 1 2 0 0 5 14 Lovett W 1 1 1 1 1 5 .714 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 .500 7 .636 L 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 Hodson W 0 0 1 0 0 1 .500 2 1 0 0 0 0 3 .600 4 .571 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 Staley W 2 1 0 0 2 5 .385 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 .371 13 .481 L 1 2 3 1 1 8 1 1 2 0 0 2 6 14 Lampe W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .006 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE PHILADELPHIA CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.

Under the Philadelphia club's management of 1893 but three pitchers were in the box in over 20 games each; and but two others in 10 games and over, seven pitchers being employed during that season. In 1894, the blunder was committed of experimenting with no less than thirteen pitchers with the result of finding it difficult to reach fourth place at the end of the race; while the club, after being in second place in April, fell down to the second division in July. But for this error of judgment, the team might have ended among the three leaders. Of those who pitched in over 10 games, Taylor took a decided lead by a total percentage of .706 to Weyhing's .548 and Carsey's .533. Of those who pitched in less than 10 games and over 5, Harper led with .667 to Haddock's .571. None of the other pitchers reached average figures—.500—except Jones, who only pitched in one game, which he won against St. Louis, while four of the thirteen did not pitch in a single victory. Experimenting with thirteen pitchers was a costly mistake in the management, and should not be repeated. It is bad enough to try too many changes in the in and out field teams, but worse in battery-team-experiments of this kind. Harper led in percentage of victories with .800 against the Eastern club batsmen, while Taylor led against those of the West with .728. The failures of the season were Fanning, Callahan, Johnson, Turner, Burns, Figgemeir and Lukens, the former being the only pitcher of the seven who pitched in a single victory against the Eastern batsmen.

Here is the record in full:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. G G r W P C L r a B a C i i o a n W a N B s l t S n u n d o l e r h P e t C t c i P d P PHILADELPHIA n t w B o i e v s h . i s e e / i o o n T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s k g o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o t l t t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r o y o a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n n n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————-

Jones W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Taylor W 3 2 2 0 3 10 .625 4 2 2 0 3 3 14 .778 24 .706 L 0 1 1 3 1 6 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 10 Harper W 0 1 2 1 0 4 .800 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 .500 6 .667 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 3 Haddock W 0 1 1 1 0 3 .750 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .333 4 .571 L 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 3 Weyhing W 0 2 0 3 3 8 .615 0 2 1 1 2 3 9 .500 17 .548 L 2 0 2 0 1 5 3 1 1 2 2 0 9 14 Carsey W 1 1 1 2 2 7 .467 0 2 2 1 2 2 9 .600 16 .533 L 1 2 3 1 1 8 2 1 1 0 0 2 6 14 Callahan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 .667 2 .400 L 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Fanning W 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 .250 L 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 Johnson W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .250 1 .250 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 3 Turner W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Burns W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1* 1 Figgemeir W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Lukens W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 [Footnote *: Should add up to 0. [Proofreader]] —————————————————————————————————————-

THE BROOKLYN CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.

The Brooklyn club experimented with nine pitchers in 1894, of which but three were able to exceed the average in percentage of victories. Of the three, Stein took the lead with the total percentage figures of .650 against Kennedy's .545, Daub being third with but .406 to his credit, all the others pitching in less than 10 games. No less than four of the nine failed to pitch in a single victory. Lucid did good work in the few games he pitched in, his victory over Boston being noteworthy. But he pitched in as many defeats against the Western teams as he did in victories. Four of the nine were worthless for skilful, strategic pitching.

Here is the club's total record in full:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a s l t S n u n d o l e d h P e t C t c i P d P BROOKLYN n t w B e i e v s h . i s e e / i o l n T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p g o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o t h t t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r o i o a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————-

Stein W 3 2 2 2 3 12 .632 2 2 2 3 2 3 14 .667 26 .650 L 1 3 2 1 0 7 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 14 Lucid W 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 .500 4 .571 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 3 Kennedy W 1 3 3 1 1 9 .500 2 4 2 3 2 2 15 .577 24 .545 L 2 3 2 1 1 9 2 3 2 2 1 1 11 20 Gastright W 0 0 0 0 2 2 .500 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 .333 3 .429 L 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 4 Daub W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .222 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 .500 10 .406 L 1 1 1 2 2 7 2 1 0 1 2 2 8 15 Underwood W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .400 L 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 G. Sharrott W 0 0 0 0 1 1 .333 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 .333 L 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Sommerville W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Korwan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE CLEVELAND CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.

The Cleveland club's management made as great a mistake in 1894 as that of the Philadelphia club in experimenting with too many pitchers. They tried but six pitchers in 1892, when they won the championship of the second half of the divided season of that year, and in 1893 put eight in the box. But last year they engaged no less than thirteen pitchers to experiment with, and from third place in 1893 with eight pitchers, they ended in sixth position in 1894 with thirteen. Of those who pitched in over 20 games, Cuppy led with the percentage figures of .568, Young being second with .543. Of those who pitched in over 10 games and less than 20, Sullivan led with .600, followed by John Clarkson with .533. Of those who pitched in less than 10 games, but one reached average figures in percentage, Menafee pitching in only one game, a victory over Brooklyn, and Mullane in but 3, of which 2 were victories over St. Louis and Louisville. Cuppy did fine box work against the five Western clubs opposed to him, but he was excelled by Young against the Eastern batsmen. Five of the thirteen failed to pitch in a single victory.

Here is the record in full:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a i i o a n W a N a B s t S n u n d o l e d r h P t C t c i P d P CLEVELAND n t w B e o i e s h . i s e e / i o l o n T r b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c u c o n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e r a u a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Menafee W 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.000 0 0 1 0 0 1 .000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1[*] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mullane W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 1 2 .667 2 .667 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Sullivan W 0 1 1 1 2 1 6 .600 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 6 .600 L 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cuppy W 2 0 1 1 1 2 7 .368 2 3 3 2 4 14 .778 21 .568 L 2 4 3 0 1 2 12 2 0 0 2 0 4 16 Young W 1 1 1 3 2 3 11 .440 1 4 3 4 2 14 .667 25 .543 L 4 3 2 1 2 2 14 3 0 1 1 2 7 21 J. Clarkson W 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 .167 1 2 2 1 1 7 .778 8 .533 L 1 0 2 1 1 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 2 7 Wallace W 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 .667 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .500 L 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 Griffith W 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 .500 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 2 .500 L 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Lyster W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Whitrock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Knauss W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Fischer W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Petty W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 [Footnote *: Total should be 0. [Proofreader]] —————————————————————————————————————-

THE PITTSBURGH CLUB'S PITCHING RECORD.

Of the nine pitchers employed by the Pittsburgh club in 1894 only three pitched in 20 games and over, and of this trio Killen led in percentage figures with .583, against Gumbert's .563 and Ehret's .389. The latter's blunders, outside of his actual box work, damaged him in his field support and in loss of local favor, otherwise he would have probably led in the season's record against the Eastern clubs. Gumbert led Killen by .471 to .364 in percentage figures, Killen being the most effective against the Western teams. Of those who pitched in 10 games and less than 20, Colcolough did the best work, with average percentage figures against the batsmen of both sections, with an even .500 in percentage figures against both, Menafee being second against both with .333 each. Of those who pitched in 5 games and less than 10, Nicol took the lead with the total figures of .667. Terry was a failure in Pittsburgh, but did well in Chicago. Easton was the last ditch pitcher, not winning a game. Ehret's record against Cleveland was the best of the season—not a single lost game out of the series he pitched in. Jordan won his single game.

Here is the record:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W C L r a B l a C i o a n W a N a B s l S n u n d o l e d r h P e C t c i P d P PITTSBURGH n t w B e o i e v h . i s e e / i o l o n T r e i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l c o n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a a u a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Jordan W 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 1.000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Nicol W 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.000 0 0 1 2 0 3 .600 4 .667 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 2 Killen W 0 1 1 0 0 2 4 .364 1 4 1 1 3 10 .769 14 .583 L 1 1 1 2 2 0 7 2 0 1 0 0 3 10 Gumbert W 1 0 1 1 1 4 8 .471 0 2 2 2 4 10 .667 18 .563 L 1 3 2 1 1 1 9 0 0 2 2 1 5 14 Colcolough W 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 .500 0 1 1 1 1 4 .500 7 .500 L 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 7 Ehret W 2 2 1 1 0 2 8 .364 7 0 1 1 1 10 .556 18 .389 L 2 2 3 3 3 1 14 0 5 2 1 0 8 22 Menafee W 1 1 0 0 2 0 4 .333 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 4 .333 L 1 1 2 1 1 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 Terry W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Easton W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE CHICAGO CLUB'S RECORD.

The Chicago club, in 1894, placed only seven pitchers in the box, of which but three pitched in 20 games and over, and but two in not less than 10 games and not less than 20. Of the three former, Griffith led with a percentage of victories pitched in of .645 to Stratton's .643 and Hutchinson's .471, McGill being fourth with but .240. Of those who pitched in not less than 5 games, besides the above pitchers, Abbey led with .333, Terry's figures being .294, the Eastern batsmen punishing him badly. Camp pitched in but one game, and that a defeat.

Here is the club record of the pitching:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a B s l t S n u n d o l e d r h P e t t c i P d P CHICAGO n t w B e o i e v s . i s e e / i o l o n T r e b L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u o n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r u a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Griffith W 1 0 2 2 2 3 10 .625 1 3 1 3 2 10 .667 20 .645 L 1 2 1 0 1 1 6 2 1 0 1 1 5 11 Stratton W 0 1 1 0 2 1 5 .714 0 0 2 1 1 4 .571 9 .643 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 3 5 Hutchinson W 2 1 1 2 1 2 9 .409 0 2 2 1 2 7 .583 16 .471 L 3 5 2 1 2 0 13 1 2 1 1 0 5 18 Abbey W 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 .333 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .333 L 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 4 Terry W 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 .143 1 1 0 0 1 3 1.000 5 .294 L 3 3 2 1 1 2 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 McGill W 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 .222 0 0 1 1 2 4 .250 6 .240 L 2 1 2 1 1 0 7 4 2 2 2 2 12 19 Camp W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE ST. LOUIS CLUB'S RECORD.

The St. Louis club tried seven pitchers in 1894, and but one reached the percentage average of .500 and over, and that one was Breitenstein, who had .519; Hawley being second with .419, and A. Clarkson third with .360, Gleason making but little effort in the St. Louis box, though he did better in that of Baltimore, his percentage being but .250 in the St. Louis team. Clark, Sullivan and Mason were failures, not one of them pitching in a single victory. Here is the record:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C L r a B l a C i i o a n W a N a B s l t n u n d o l e d r h P e t C c i P d P ST. LOUIS n t w B e o i e v s h i s e e / i o l o n T r e b i n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c n i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r a a l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g g t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h o i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Breitenstein W 1 2 1 4 3 2 13 .448 2 4 2 3 3 14 .609 27 .519 L 5 2 8 1 2 3 16 3 2 2 2 0 9 25 Hawley W 1 0 4 2 1 2 10 .417 1 2 2 1 2 8 .421 18 .419 L 2 3 3 3 3 0 14 1 1 3 3 3 11 25 A. Clarkson W 0 3 1 1 0 2 7 .438 0 0 1 1 0 2 .222 9 .360 L 3 2 0 0 3 1 9 3 1 1 1 1 7 16 Gleason W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 1 2 .286 2 .250 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1 5 6 Clark W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sullivan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Clark W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE CINCINNATI CLUB'S RECORD.

It may be said of the Cincinnati club's management in 1894, that in the multiplicity of pitchers there is much danger, or words to that effect. Twelve pitchers were tried (including one who pitched in two innings) with a field support of no less than eleven players, exclusive of the pitchers who took part at times in both infield and outfield positions, together with four catchers, an aggregate of 27 players to occupy but nine positions in the game. Could blundering management go further? Under such circumstances is it any wonder that team-work was impossible, while cliques of disappointed players still further weakened the nine in nearly every game, the ultimate result being ninth place in the race, with the added discredit of being beaten out in the race by their old rivals, the St. Louis "Browns." But three of the twelve pitchers took part in 20 games and over, and but one in 10 games and less than 20, and three out of the twelve failed to win a single game. Parrott did the most effective work against the Eastern batsmen, and he and Dwyer were tied against the Western batsmen, but two of the twelve pitching in more victories than defeats. The experience of the Cincinnati "battery" teams should teach managers a lesson for 1895 in indulging in experiments with too many pitchers.

Here is the record:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P L r a B l a C i o a n W a N a B s l t S u n d o l e d r h P e t C t i P d P CINCINNATI n t w B e o i e v s h . s e e / i o l o n T r e b i L v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c o i o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r a u l t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g g i l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h o s e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Tannehill W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 1 1 1 .500 1 .500 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Dwyer W 1 3 1 0 1 2 8 .400 1 1 3 3 2 10 .588 18 .486 L 4 1 1 2 2 2 12 0 2 2 0 3 7 19 Parrott W 1 2 1 2 2 2 9 .500 2 2 1 2 2 9 .474 18 .486 L 3 1 3 0 1 1 9 2 2 2 2 2 10 19 Chamberlain W 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 .500 0 1 1 1 2 5 .455 10 .476 L 2 1 1 1 0 0 5 3 2 0 1 0 6 11 Cross W 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1.000 0 1 1 0 0 2 .333 3 .429 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 4 4 Whitrock W 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 .375 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 3 .375 L 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Fournier W 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 .250 L 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Fischer W 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 .100 0 0 0 1 0 1 .500 2 .167 L 1 1 2 2 2 1 9 0 0 1 0 0 1 10 Blank W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Flynn W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1[*] Pfann W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

[Footnote *: Grand Total should be 2. [Proofreader]] —————————————————————————————————————-

THE WASHINGTON CLUB'S RECORD.

The Washington club was weakened in the same manner as the Cincinnati club, by experimenting with too many pitchers, they using a round dozen in the box during their campaign in 1894. Of the twelve, but one exceeded the percentage average of .500. Of those who pitched in 20 games and over there were but two, Maul leading with .423, and Mercer following with .410. Of those who pitched in 10 games and under 20, Esper led Stockdale and Petty, by .400 to .357 and .273, respectively. Sullivan was a bad failure, as he only pitched in 2 victories out of 12 games. No less than five of the twelve pitchers failed to pitch in a single victory, not even against the Western teams. Under such circumstances the wonder is that Washington escaped the last ditch. Here is the record:

—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i P C L r a B l C i i o a n W a N a B l t S n u n d o l e d r P e t C t c i P d P WASHINGTON n t w B e o e v s h . i s e e / i o l o T r e b i L n v T r T r vs. L m Y s p k o c l u c o n i o c o c o o o t h l t e a r a u a l t e t e s r r o i y a n n g g i t l a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n l t d h o s i e l t l t —————————————————————————————————————- Mullarsky W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 .667 2 .667 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Maul W 1 0 1 1 1 4 .267 1 1 1 0 2 2 7 .636 11 .423 L 2 3 3 2 1 11 0 1 1 1 1 0 4 15 Mercer W 0 0 2 2 1 5 .294 0 3 1 2 1 4 11 .500 16 .410 L 4 3 1 0 4 12 4 2 1 1 2 1 11 23 Esper W 0 0 0 1 1 2 .400 0 0 1 2 1 0 4 .400 6 .400 L 0 0 2 1 0 3 2 2 2 0 0 1 6 9 Stockdale W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 1 0 1 1 1 1 5 .625 5 .357 L 2 2 0 1 0 5 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 9 Petty W 0 1 0 0 0 1 .125 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 .667 3 .273 L 3 1 1 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 8 Sullivan W 0 1 0 0 0 1 .167 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 .167 2 .167 L 0 1 1 2 1 5 0 1 2 0 1 1 5 10 Wynne W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Anderson W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 Stephens W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Boyd W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 Haddock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 4 —————————————————————————————————————-

THE LOUISVILLE CLUB'S RECORD.

The Louisville club had nine pitchers in position during 1894, of which but four pitched in 20 games and over, and but one in 10 games and less than 20, Knell pitching in less than 20 games, with the percentage of .241, and Stratton in less than 10, with .143, the latter doing far better afterwards in the Chicago team. Hemming's .355 was the best record, Menafee being second with .348, both pitching in over twenty games.

Hemming's percentage in the Louisville team was but .355, which, compared with his record of 1.000 in the Baltimore team, made his total percentage .615, showing quite a difference between his support in the Louisvilles and that in the Baltimores.

Hemming, Menafee and Inks were the most successful against the strong teams of the Eastern division. Whitrock, Sullivan and Kilroy were unsuccessful opponents. Here is the record:

————————————————————————————————————— EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P G h G r i W P C r a B l a C i i a n W a N a B s l t S n n d o l e d r h P e t C t c P d P LOUISVILLE n t w B e o i e v s h . i e e / i o l o n T r e b i L n T r T r vs. L m Y s p k g o c l u c o n o c o c o o o t h l t t e a r a u a t e t e s r r o i y o a n n g g i t a n a n Pitchers t e k n a n n l t d h o s i l t l t ————————————————————————————————————— Hemming W 2 0 0 1 1 0 4 .250 0 2 2 3 0 7 .429 11 .355 L 2 4 1 2 1 2 12 3 1 2 0 2 8 20 Menafee W 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 .286 3 1 0 1 1 6 .375 8 .348 L 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 1 4 1 2 2 10 15 Inks W 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 .250 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 2 .250 L 1 1 1 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 Knell W 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 .190 0 0 0 1 2 3 .375 7 .241 L 3 4 4 1 3 2 17 1 1 2 1 0 5 22 Wadsworth W 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 .200 0 0 0 1 0 1 .167 4 .190 L 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 1 1 1 1 1 5 17 Stratton W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 1 0 0 1 .167 1 .143 L 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 4 6 Whitrock W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Sullivan W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Kilroy W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 0 .000 L 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4 5 —————————————————————————————————————

Interesting Pitching Records.

No pitching records under the scoring rules of 1894 admitted of any data being made up from which a true criterion of the skill of the pitchers could be arrived at; nor can there be until the rules give the figures of "innings pitched in" and base hits made off each inning each pitcher pitched in. There is scarcely a game in which two pitchers do not enter the box to pitch, at least in one or two innings; but the scoring rules do not give the figures of innings pitched in, or how many base hits were made off each pitcher, and the result is that the total base hits scored in the game cannot be divided up between the pitchers correctly. A pitcher goes into the box at the outset of the game, and in one or two innings he is badly punished. Then a substitute follows him, and in the succeeding innings not a third of the base hits made off the first pitcher are recorded against the substitute, and yet not a record to show this is to be had off the data the scoring rules admit of. Here is the pitching score which should be used in the summary of each game:

[Copy of Yale-Princeton score of June 16, 1894.]

PITCHING SCORE. ————————————————————————————- CARTER. BRADLEY. ALTMAN. Innings pitched in by 9 6 2 Base hits off 9 5 7 Runs earned off 3 2 3 Bases on balls by 4 2 1 Wild pitches by 0 1 1 Hit batsmen by 0 1 1 Struck out by 8 3 0 ————————————————————————————-

Umpire—Emslie. Time of game—2 hours 5 minutes.

Not an official record, giving the data of work done in the box by the League pitchers, furnishes any correct figures by which to judge the good or bad work done in the box each season. We give below a series of records which give a somewhat better idea of each pitcher's box work than the official averages can give under the pitching rules in vogue up to 1895. The first table gives a full, but not complete, record of the League pitching of 1894 by those pitchers whose percentage of victories pitched in are not less than .500. Those whose record was under .500 and not less than .400 included the following: Inks, .478; Stratton, .476; German, .471; Maul, .470; Hutchinson, .467; Parrott, .459; Ehret, .436; Daub, .423; Mercer, .421; Hawley, .413, and Westervelt, .412. Of those whose percentages were under .400 and not less than .300 were the following: Stockdale, .375; Menafee, .351; Sullivan, .348; J. Clarkson, .308. These were followed by McGill, .291; Terry, 278; Knell, .200, and Wadsworth, .190. The official pitching averages, from which these figures are taken, give no record of the pitchers who pitched in less than 15 games during 1894, and those who pitched in 10 games and less than 15 included pitchers having better percentages than some of those recorded above.

Here is a record taken from the figures of the official tables, which presents data from which a pretty fair estimate of a pitcher's ability can be arrived at; though it is, of course, not a really correct criterion of his box work, as it does not contain the record of the runs earned off his pitching solely by base hits, which cannot be obtained under the existing scoring rules:

——————————————————————————————————- P B e a r s c e e G n h a t i m t B S e o s a a s f s c S o e r t R P V P f s S i o u i i i f t f l n t c t o r i e s c t c P n u c n F A B A h o h i c e S i v a v e r e t B k B c e e t e d i d c a H a o l r t r e h l O i s r d a i a i s I i l u t e e i g n g n n n s t s s d n e g e PITCHERS. CLUBS. . . g . . . . . g . . ——————————————————————————————————- Meekin New York 47 .790 253 147 127 1 4 26 .798 .281 McMahon Baltimore 34 .735 269 109 55 8 1 17 .869 .286 Rusie New York 49 .734 253 189 204 2 4 20 .867 .275 Taylor Philadelphia 33 .719 381 85 79 0 3 21 .796 .331 Nichols Boston 45 .711 291 108 98 2 1 40 .856 .282 Stivetts Boston 39 .692 306 100 73 3 4 56 .813 .336 Hawke Baltimore 23 .652 311 58 50 5 2 12 .887 .301 Stein Brooklyn 42 .619 280 162 72 4 3 31 .785 .260 Gumbert Pittsburgh 31 .600 320 73 60 1 1 18 .909 .303 Gleason Baltimore 29 .586 312 59 39 4 1 24 .841 .342 Killen Pittsburgh 24 .583 303 83 57 1 1 14 .909 .256 Cuppy Cleveland 37 .583 298 119 63 1 4 28 .916 .253 Carsey Philadelphia 31 .580 314 95 40 1 3 31 .831 .277 Breitenstein St. Louis 49 .551 280 162 138 9 3 27 .902 .229 Weyhing Philadelphia 33 .545 324 101 79 7 1 9 .845 .168 Kennedy Brooklyn 42 .545 302 134 101 0 5 22 .771 .300 Colcolough Pittsburgh 15 .533 354 59 19 1 1 19 .844 .214 Young Cleveland 47 .532 293 100 100 0 4 24 .902 .213 Chamberlain Cincinnati 19 .526 309 78 57 3 1 10 .729 .304 Staley Boston 25 .520 344 55 29 2 0 12 .744 .238 Esper Baltimore 26 .500 339 59 36 0 0 16 .929 .239 Dwyer Cincinnati 39 .500 317 97 49 0 0 32 .902 .269 Hemming Baltimore 40 .500 295 140 75 0 2 23 .893 .256 ——————————————————————————————————-

Here are the records, showing the batting and fielding averages of the nine pitchers who excelled in each record:

——————————————————————————————————- F A B A i v a v G e e G t e a l r a t r m d a m i a e i g e n g s n e s g e PITCHERS CLUBS . g . PITCHERS CLUBS . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1. Stratton Chicago 21 .931 1. Stratton Chicago 33 .350 2. Esper Baltimore 26 .929 2. Nicol Louisville 28 .348 3. Cuppy Cleveland 37 .916 3. Mullane Cleveland 18 .343 4. Gumbert Pittsburgh 31 .909 4. Gleason Baltimore 31 .341 5. Killen Pittsburgh 24 .909 5. Inks Baltimore 24 .337 6. Menafee Pittsburgh 37 .904 6. Stivetts Boston 57 .336 7. Dwyer Cincinnati 39 .902 7. Taylor Philadelphia 34 .331 8. Young Cleveland 47 .902 8. Parrott Cincinnati 59 .329 9. Breitenstein St. Louis 49 .902 9. Terry Chicago 25 .325 ——————————————————————————————————-

According to the above figures Stratton was the best fielding pitcher, and Breitenstein the poorest; Stratton also excelling in base hit averages, while in that record Terry was the tail-ender. The nine pitchers who excelled in total stolen bases were as follows:

——————————————————————————————————- PITCHERS. CLUBS. Games. Stolen Bases. ——————————————————————————————————- 1. Parrott Cincinnati 59 5 2. Stivetts Boston 57 4 3. Terry Chicago 25 3 4. Stratton Chicago 33 3 5. Taylor Philadelphia 34 3 6. Mullane Cleveland 18 2 7. Nicol Louisville 28 2 8. Inks Baltimore 24 1 9. Gleason Baltimore 31 1 ——————————————————————————————————-

In the foregoing two tables pitchers are included who did not reach a percentage of victories pitched in of .500; the list of these including Inks, Stratton, German, Hutchinson, Mullane, Parrott, Maul, Ehret, Daub, Mercer, Hawley and Westervelt, whose percentage figures were less than .500 and not lower than .400. Of those whose percentage figures did not reach .400 and were not lower than .300, were Stockdale, Menafee, Sullivan and A. Clarkson; while those who were less than .300 and not lower than .200, were McGill, Terry and Knell; Wadsworth being the tail-ender in percentage figures with .190.

The above tables present quite an interesting pitching problem, the puzzle being to find out which of the above pitchers did the best work in the box in every respect, not only in pitching, but by his batting, fielding and base running. In percentage of victories pitched in, Meekin took the lead. In the number of batsmen struck out, Rusie excelled. In fewest bases on balls, Staley had the lowest figures. In base hit averages, Stivetts led; while in total sacrifice hits, Breitenstein bore off the palm. In total runs scored, Stivetts had the largest total. In stolen bases, Kennedy was the most successful, and yet he only stole 5 in 42 games.

Now the problem is, Which pitcher did the best average work in his position? and we leave that for our readers to solve.

It is alleged that the reason pitchers do so little in stealing bases is that they are too fatigued in their pitching in each inning to do much in the active work of base running, both duties trying a player's nerves considerably. For this reason it would be a good plan, in the order of batting, to have a sure hitter follow each pitcher, so as to help bat him round.

Hints to the Pitchers of 1895.

We are glad to record the fact that scientific pitching is advancing in the League arena. Its progress, hitherto, has been slow and only step by step, but it is making headway, and during 1894 the science of strategic pitching made greater progress than ever before. The effective blow given to "cyclone" pitching by the new pitching rules, which went into effect in 1893, while it did not materially affect the strategic class of pitchers—some of whom the new rules actually benefited—obliged the class of pitchers who depend solely upon their dangerous speed for success, to adopt strategic tactics to a more or less extent; and this is why a few of the old "cyclone" pitchers—as they are called—succeeded better than they anticipated under the change made in the rules in 1893, which had placed them farther from the batsman than in 1892.

It may be said, in connection with the pitching of 1894, that one thing noticeable in the "box" work of that season was that the brainy class of men in the position began to pay more attention to the advice of the theorists of the game than before; and thereby they learned to realize the fact that strategic skill, and that equally important attribute, thorough control of temper, together with the avoidance of the senseless kicking habit in vogue, had more to do with success in their position than they had previously been aware. Those of the pitching fraternity who read up on the subject of skill in pitching, were told that the primary elements of strategic work in the "box" included: "First, to deceive the eye of the batsman in regard to the character of the delivery of the ball, as to its being fast or slow. Second, to deceive his judgment in reference to the direction of the ball when pitched to him, as to its being high or low, or where he wants it. Third, to watch the batsman closely so as to know just when he is temporarily 'out of form' for making a good hit; and Fourth, to tempt him with a ball which will be likely to go high from his bat to the outfield and be caught."

Then again they were told that "another very effective point in strategic pitching, is a thoroughly disguised change of pace in delivery. This is difficult of attainment, and as a general rule it can only be played with effect on the careless class of batsmen. Let it be borne in mind that the pitcher who cannot control his temper is as unfit for his position as is a quick-tempered billiard player to excel as a winner in professional contests. Quick temper is the mortal foe of cool judgment, and it plays the mischief with that nervy condition so necessary in the development of skilful strategy. The pitcher must of necessity be subject to annoyances well calculated to try a man's temper, especially when his best efforts in pitching are rendered useless by the blunders of incompetent fielders, but under such trying circumstances his triumph is all the greater if he can pluck victory out of the fire of such opposition, by the thorough control of his temper." This is something only a minority of League pitchers did in 1894.

SUMMARY RECORD.

The leading pitcher of each of the twelve clubs against the six clubs of each section, in percentage of victories pitched in, by those who occupied the box in 10 games and over, is given in the following table:

——————————————————————————————————- BALTIMORE. AGAINST THE EASTERN CLUBS. AGAINST THE WESTERN CLUBS Percent. of Percent. of Pitchers. Victories. Pitchers. Victories ——————————————————————————————————-

McMahon .706 McMahon .811

NEW YORK. Meelin .778 Rusie .889

BOSTON. Nichols .756 Stivetts .763

PHILADELPHIA. Taylor .625 Taylor .778

BROOKLYN. Stein .692 Stein .650

CLEVELAND. Sullivan .600 Cuppy .778

PITTSBURGH. Gumbert .471 Killen .769

CHICAGO. Griffith .625 Griffith .667

ST. LOUIS. Breitenstein .448 Breitenstein .609

CINCINNATI. Parrott .500 Dwyer .588

WASHINGTON. Mercer .294 Maul .636

LOUISVILLE. Hemming .250 Hemming .429 ——————————————————————————————————-

It will be seen that Rusie leads all the pitchers against the Western teams and Meekin all against the Eastern teams, Rusie having the highest individual percentage of victories against a single section.

There can be no really reliable criterion of a pitcher's skill, as judged by the data of his averages, until the figures of runs earned off the pitching solely by base hits, and not by base hits and stolen bases, and the errors they lead to combined, as is the case under the defective scoring rules in existence in 1894. To call a run scored by a combination of base hits and stolen bases is unjust to the pitcher, while judging his pitching by the percentage of victories pitched is only less faulty; but the latter is the better criterion of skill than that of earned runs, as calculated on the basis of the rules of 1894.

THE OFFICIAL AVERAGES FOR 1894.

The official averages for 1894, as prepared by Secretary Young, of the National League, from data furnished him under the regulation scoring rules of each year, have always been more or less defective as far as affording a reliable criterion of play in each department of the game was concerned, and necessarily so, owing to the faulty scoring rules in existence up to 1895. The batting averages are more than useless, as they fail to show the only reliable criterion of play there is, and that is, the percentage of runners forwarded around the bases by base hits. The pitching averages are similarly useless, as they fail to give the correct data for judging the percentage of runs earned off the pitching on the basis of runs scored by base hits, and by nothing else; the figures of earned runs, under the present defective rules, including runs earned by a combination of base hits and stolen bases, together with such fielding errors as base stealing leads to, a class of errors aside from regular fielding errors. Glancing at the record of the so-called leading batsmen since 1888, we find that the data on which the averages are made out grew more defective each year up to 1893, when they were improved a little. Below will be found the several headings of the season's averages, together with the name of the so-called leading batsman of each year, during the past seven years, beginning with 1888 and ending with 1894.

SEASON OF 1888. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Anson CLUB. Chicago Games Played. 134 Times at Bat. 515 Runs Scored. 101 Ave. Per Game. 0.75 First Base Hits. 177 Percentage. .343 Total Bases. 52 Ave. Per Game. 1.88 Bases Stolen. 28 Ave. Per Game. 0.20 ———————————————

SEASON OF 1889. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Brouthers CLUB. Boston Games. 126 Per cent. of Base Hits. .373 Stolen Bases. 22 Sacrifice Hits. 31 No. of Runs. 105 ———————————————

SEASON OF 1890. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Glasscock CLUB. New York Position. S. S. Games. 124 P. c. base hits to times at bat. .336 ———————————————

SEASON OF 1891. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Hamilton CLUB. Philadelphia Games Played. 133 Runs Scored. 42 Per cent. .338 ———————————————

SEASON OF 1892. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Childs CLUB. Cleveland Games Played. 144 Times at Bat. 552 Runs Scored. 135 Base Hits. 185 Per cent. .335 Total Bases. 233 Sacrifice Hits. 14 Stolen Bases. 31 ———————————————

SEASON OF 1893. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Stenzel CLUB. Pittsburgh Games Played. 51 Times at Bat. 198 Runs Scored. 56 Base Hits. 81 Per cent. .409 Total Bases. 113 Sacrifice Hits. 12 Stolen Bases. 13 ———————————————

SEASON OF 1894. ——————————————— Rank. 1 NAME. Duffy CLUB. Boston Games Played. 124 Times at Bat. 539 Runs Scored. 160 Base Hits. 236 Per cent. .438 Total Bases. 372 Sacrifice Hits. 10 Stolen Bases. 49 ———————————————

Every record of the above tables is made up to encourage the mere record batsman, the team-worker at the bat having no show given him whatever, as there is not a figure in the averages—with the probable exception of the "sacrifice hit" column—to show his percentage of runners forwarded by his base hits, this being the sole criterion of effective batting. What is wanted is a record made up in this form:

BATSMAN. CLUB. Games. Per cent. per Game Runners Forwarded by Base Hits. Per cent. of Base Hits to Times at Bat. Per cent. of Sacrifice Hits per Game. Per cent. of Runs per Game. Per cent. of Bases Taken on Balls. Per cent. of Outs on Strikes. Per cent. of Chances Given for Catches.

The above record shows how the batsman excelled in forwarding runners by his hits, together with his percentage of base hits, sacrifice hits, runs scored, percentage of times he gave chances for outs on catches—a record which shows the batsman's weakness in batting—percentage of outs on strikes, and of the times he took his base on balls. The figures showing total bases is only of more advantage to record batsmen than to team-workers at the bat, and if left out would cause the "fungo" hitting class of batsmen to strive to do more teamwork at the bat than they do now. Another column might be added showing the percentage of runners forwarded by extra base hits.

As regards the pitching averages they are equally unreliable in affording a criterion of excellence of play in the box. How is it possible to tell how effective a pitcher is by the figures of earned runs as recorded under the scoring rules in vogue up to 1895? A batsman, for instance, gets to first base by a fly ball which dropped between two fielders running to catch the ball, a so-called base hit is scored—the hit really giving an easy chance for a catch. This is followed by two steals, sending the runner to third, and a single base hit sends him home, and by the combined play an earned run off the pitching is unjustly earned. Another instance of this kind is shown when the first batsman is given a life by a dropped fly ball; the second is given another life by a muffed ball from an infield hit, and the third man at the bat is given a life by a wild throw to first base; after which three batsmen make safe hits, and before the side is put out, three runs are scored as earned, though the side should have been put out had the pitcher's field support been up to even ordinary mark, the fact being that not a single run was really earned off the pitching, yet three earned runs are scored against the pitcher under the scoring rules "up to date." Other instances of the uselessness of the existing method of making out the League averages could be readily cited, but these amply suffice, we think.

One thing against improvement in the scoring rules is: first, the fact that the magnates have the power to revise the amendments made by the Committee on Rules. Another is the failure, as a rule, to appoint that committee so as to secure an efficient working committee. But even when this is done their good work is knocked in the head by the majority vote of the magnates at the spring meeting. The vote should be made unanimous in changing any rule favorably reported by the Committee.

Here are the complete official averages for 1894, as prepared by Secretary Young, after revision of averages published last fall:

Batting Record