OF PLAYERS WHO HAVE TAKEN PART IN FIFTEEN OR MORE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES—SEASON OF 1894.

——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Duffy Boston 124 539 160 236 .438 372 10 49 Turner Philadelphia 77 347 94 147 .423 187 8 12 Thompson Philadelphia 102 458 115 185 .403 314 8 29 Delehanty Philadelphia 114 497 149 199 .400 283 5 29 Hamilton Philadelphia 131 559 196 223 .398 289 7 99 Anson Chicago 83 347 87 137 .394 188 7 17 Kelley Baltimore 129 509 167 199 .391 304 19 45 Cross Philadelphia 120 543 128 211 .388 290 16 28 Tenny Boston 24 80 21 31 .387 43 2 7 Holliday Cincinnati 122 519 125 199 .383 297 4 39 Brodie Baltimore 129 574 132 212 .369 269 24 50 Doyle New York 105 425 94 157 .369 216 4 48 Keeler Baltimore 128 593 164 218 .367 305 16 30 Griffin Brooklyn 106 405 123 148 .365 209 5 48 Childs Cleveland 117 476 144 174 .365 227 4 20 Grady Philadelphia 50 187 45 68 .363 100 2 3 Dahlen Chicago 121 508 150 184 .362 289 10 49 Ryan Chicago 108 481 133 173 .359 233 8 12 Burns Brooklyn 126 513 107 184 .358 261 9 29 Burkett Cleveland 124 518 134 185 .357 267 10 32 McKean Cleveland 130 561 115 199 .354 281 11 32 Smith Pittsburgh 125 497 129 175 .352 267 10 37 Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 523 148 184 .351 303 5 60 Earle Brooklyn and Louisville 33 114 23 40 .350 47 4 5 Stratton Chicago and Louisville 33 134 39 47 .350 77 0 8 McCarthy Boston 126 536 118 187 .349 266 9 40 Nicol Louisville 28 112 12 39 .348 53 1 2 Robinson Baltimore 106 420 71 146 .348 182 11 13 Davis New York 124 492 124 170 .345 267 9 37 ——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Brouthers Baltimore 123 528 137 182 .344 287 18 40 Joyce Washington 98 357 103 124 .344 230 5 23 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 534 122 184 .344 284 22 20 Clements Philadelphia 47 172 26 59 .343 85 3 04 Mullane Baltimore and Cleveland 18 67 3 23 .343 27 1 2 Gleason Baltimore and St. Louis 31 111 24 38 .342 55 4 1 Miller St. Louis 125 480 93 164 .341 223 8 20 Lowe Boston 133 615 585 210 .341 323 9 25 McGraw Baltimore 123 515 115 175 .340 221 14 77 Daly Brooklyn 123 494 135 167 .338 237 4 53 Inks Baltimore and Louisville 24 89 12 27 .337 30 1 1 Sullivan Washington & Philadelphia 93 374 72 126 .337 166 7 15 Connaughton Boston 38 166 38 56 .337 76 1 2 Bannon Boston 127 496 130 167 .336 257 6 42 Stivetts Boston 57 244 56 82 .336 133 3 4 Treadway Brooklyn 122 482 124 162 .336 254 12 29 Sugden Pittsburgh 39 141 24 47 .333 70 6 3 VanHaltren New York 139 531 110 177 .333 231 13 44 Jennings Baltimore 128 505 136 168 .332 246 18 36 Taylor Philadelphia 34 145 21 48 .331 63 0 3 Wilmot Chicago 135 606 137 201 .331 294 14 76 LaChance Brooklyn 65 258 47 85 .329 129 3 25 Wilson New York 45 179 37 59 .329 77 2 9 Parrott Cincinnati 59 228 50 75 .329 126 1 5 Tucker Boston 122 503 112 165 .328 212 2 19 Hallman Philadelphia 119 519 111 170 .327 207 22 27 Hassamer Washington 116 493 106 161 .326 243 10 15 Lange Chicago 112 447 87 145 .324 119 4 71 Long Boston 103 475 136 154 .324 240 8 25 Terry Chicago 25 96 19 31 .323 39 0 3 Hutchinson Chicago 34 133 28 43 .323 64 2 1 McPhee Cincinnati 128 481 113 154 .320 230 6 31 Shock Brooklyn 63 237 46 76 .320 94 8 18 O'Connor Cleveland 80 324 67 105 .320 146 4 13 Abbey Washington 129 521 95 166 .318 243 13 30 Kittredge Chicago 50 167 36 53 .317 65 5 2 Twineham St. Louis 31 127 22 40 .314 50 1 2 Connor New York and St. Louis 121 462 93 145 .313 253 6 15 Latham Cincinnati 130 532 132 167 .313 233 11 62 Hoy Cincinnati 128 506 118 158 .312 241 11 30 Hartman Pittsburgh 49 186 41 58 .311 82 8 12 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 254 51 79 .311 113 11 17 Foutz Brooklyn 73 296 41 92 .310 126 8 16 Decker Chicago 89 391 76 121 .309 177 2 22 Vaughn Cincinnati 67 275 48 85 .309 145 2 6 Selbach Washington 96 372 70 115 .309 188 3 23 Stockdale Washington 19 75 9 23 .306 25 1 2 Donovan Pittsburgh 133 575 146 176 .306 230 26 51 Reitz Baltimore 109 450 86 138 .306 226 7 18 Ely St. Louis 127 508 85 155 .305 237 13 23 O. Tebeau Cleveland 119 501 79 153 .305 200 9 27 McGuire Washington 102 427 67 130 .304 176 4 11 ——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Chamberlain Cincinnati 20 69 10 21 .304 36 3 1 Ward Washington 89 343 85 104 .303 130 5 36 Gumbert Pittsburgh 33 112 18 34 .303 52 1 1 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 573 124 173 .302 251 10 33 Irwin Chicago 130 503 85 152 .302 220 4 34 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 527 88 159 .301 217 20 20 Anderson Brooklyn 16 63 13 19 .301 29 1 7 Bonner Baltimore 27 113 26 34 .301 46 2 11 Hawke Baltimore 25 93 12 28 .301 37 5 2 German New York 19 60 8 18 .300 19 2 1 Merritt Boston and Cincinnati 66 243 38 73 .300 100 1 5 Shindle Brooklyn 117 476 96 143 .300 201 17 18 Kennedy Brooklyn 42 160 22 48 .300 61 6 5 Burke New York 138 575 124 172 .299 225 10 47 Cooley St. Louis 52 207 35 62 .299 71 6 8 Kinslow Brooklyn 61 221 38 66 .298 91 2 6 McAleer Cleveland 64 251 36 75 .298 99 5 17 Pfeffer Louisville 104 420 66 125 .297 182 15 33 Flaherty Louisville 38 149 15 44 .295 55 1 2 Dungan Louisville and Chicago 18 71 11 20 .295 23 1 3 Mercer Washington 43 163 29 48 .294 61 1 10 Nash Boston 132 510 132 150 .294 212 3 19 Canavan Cincinnati 100 362 81 106 .293 201 5 15 Lake Louisville 16 41 8 12 .292 18 0 2 Cartwright Washington 132 509 86 149 .292 238 3 35 Boyle Philadelphia 116 512 103 150 .291 203 18 22 Grimm Louisville 107 413 65 120 .290 182 8 14 Smith Louisville 39 135 27 39 .288 56 1 13 Blake Cleveland 73 300 51 86 .286 113 10 1 McMahon Baltimore 34 129 17 37 .286 46 8 1 Shugart Pittsburgh 133 533 103 152 .285 236 13 23 Knell Louisville 31 119 10 34 .285 47 1 2 Zimmer Cleveland 88 340 55 97 .285 141 2 15 Fuller New York 95 378 82 107 .283 138 0 34 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 332 47 94 .283 123 13 20 Nichols Boston 45 170 40 48 .282 64 2 1 Tiernan New York 112 429 87 121 .282 184 6 26 Farrell New York 112 404 50 114 .282 175 3 10 Meekin New York 48 174 26 49 .281 80 1 4 Ganzel Boston 65 266 52 74 .278 98 4 1 Carsey Philadelphia 32 126 31 35 .277 40 1 3 Rusie New York 49 185 20 51 .275 74 2 4 Shiebeck Pittsburgh & Washington 75 294 69 81 .275 102 1 19 Clark Louisville 76 316 55 87 .275 132 1 24 Peitz St. Louis 100 364 62 100 .274 159 7 17 Quinn St. Louis 106 411 58 113 .274 142 13 26 Denny Louisville 60 222 26 61 .274 87 6 10 Hawley St. Louis 48 161 16 44 .273 68 5 1 Reilly Philadelphia 36 132 21 37 .272 42 1 6 O'Rourke Louisville & St. Louis 80 316 60 86 .272 106 6 11 McGarr Cleveland 127 522 94 142 .272 185 5 34 Murphy New York 73 284 65 77 .271 89 2 25 ——————————————————————————————————- P e A r G t B a R a c m B u s e T S S e a n e n . . . s t s s t B H B NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- Ryan Boston 49 203 39 55 .271 87 1 4 Virtue Cleveland 23 85 15 23 .270 80 2 1 Clarke Baltimore 27 100 18 27 .270 40 3 1 Dwyer Cincinnati 49 171 32 46 .269 72 0 0 Schriver Chicago 94 356 56 96 .269 123 5 9 Dailey Brooklyn 65 230 39 62 .269 89 6 4 Murphy Cincinnati 76 265 42 71 .268 89 6 5 Dowd St. Louis 123 524 92 141 .267 185 9 34 McCarthy Cincinnati 40 168 29 45 .267 60 4 3 Smith Cincinnati 128 492 73 131 .266 207 3 12 G. Tebeau Washington and Cleveland 105 398 77 106 .266 147 11 34 Twitchell Louisville 51 211 28 56 .265 86 9 9 Comiskey Cincinnati 59 230 26 61 .265 73 4 9 Hogan St. Louis 29 103 11 27 .262 37 3 7 Ward New York 136 552 99 145 .262 168 20 41 Stein Brooklyn 41 142 31 37 .260 59 4 3 Mack Pittsburgh 63 229 32 59 .257 70 14 9 Killen Pittsburgh 24 82 14 21 .256 26 1 1 Hemming Louisville and Baltimore 38 152 23 39 .256 67 0 2 Richardson Louisville 116 427 50 109 .255 134 4 11 Ewing Cleveland 53 212 32 54 .255 82 2 19 Allen Philadelphia 40 154 27 39 .253 60 3 5 Cuppy Cleveland 41 134 28 34 .253 47 1 4 Buckley St. Louis & Philadelphia 67 251 24 64 .251 87 18 0 Brown Louisville 130 542 123 136 .251 213 14 74 Weaver Louisville & Pittsburgh 90 355 35 89 .250 119 12 9 Frank St. Louis 80 321 53 89 .246 130 12 12 Parrott Chicago 126 532 83 130 .244 175 9 34 Griffith Chicago 41 139 29 34 .244 44 0 6 Wadsworth Louisville 23 74 9 18 .243 25 1 0 Esper Washington and Baltimore 25 96 16 23 .239 35 0 0 Staley Boston 25 88 12 21 .238 31 2 0 Wittrock Cincinnati 18 64 8 15 .234 17 0 0 Gilbert Brooklyn and Louisville 34 133 14 31 .233 39 1 3 Maul Washington 35 120 23 28 .233 42 1 1 Radford Washington 93 330 61 77 .233 101 6 26 Breitenstein St. Louis 53 179 27 41 .229 53 9 3 McGill Chicago 23 83 11 19 .229 24 1 1 Sullivan Washington and Cleveland 26 101 10 23 .228 33 0 0 Daub Brooklyn 28 97 13 22 .226 26 4 1 Dugdale Washington 33 129 15 28 .217 38 0 6 Colcolough Pittsburgh 19 70 10 15 .214 21 1 1 Young Cleveland 48 183 24 40 .213 61 0 4 Motz Cincinnati 18 68 8 14 .205 19 0 1 Clarkson Cleveland 16 54 7 11 .204 14 4 0 Menafee Louisville & Pittsburgh 37 125 12 25 .200 31 10 4 Lutenburg Louisville 70 255 44 49 .192 66 3 10 Clarkson St. Louis 26 85 11 16 .188 16 0 1 Ehret Pittsburgh 41 133 6 23 .172 30 10 0 Weyhing Philadelphia 33 119 9 20 .168 26 7 1 Westervelt New York 18 59 9 9 .152 11 2 1 ——————————————————————————————————-

[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. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Motz Cincinnati 18 185 18 1 204 .995 2 Anson Chicago 83 748 45 9 802 .988 3 Tucker Boston 122 1114 70 19 1203 .984 4 O. Tebeau Cleveland 107 1025 47 18 1090 .983 5 Boyle Philadelphia 116 983 64 20 1067 .981 6 Vaughn Cincinnati 19 186 11 4 201 .980 Cartright Washington 132 1227 72 36 1335 .980 7 Foutz Brooklyn 73 659 36 15 710 .979 8 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 1236 82 31 1349 .977 La Chance Brooklyn 56 503 13 12 528 .977 9 Connor New York and St. Louis 120 1084 81 28 1193 .976 Decker Chicago 48 433 16 11 460 .976 10 Lutenburg Louisville 68 595 34 16 645 .975 Brouthers Baltimore 123 1180 65 31 1276 .975 11 Comiskey Cincinnati 59 558 26 16 600 .973 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St. L. 30 270 22 8 300 .973 12 Doyle New York 99 987 60 33 1080 .969 McCarthy Cincinnati 15 146 13 5 164 .969 13 G. Tebeau Washington, Cleveland 16 161 2 9 172 .948 ——————————————————————————————————-

SECOND BASEMEN. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Reitz Baltimore 100 252 344 21 627 .966 2 Quinn St. Louis 106 344 342 33 719 .954 3 McPhee Cincinnati 128 391 449 53 893 .940 4 Pfeffer Louisville 89 264 283 35 582 .939 5 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 308 462 52 822 .936 6 Hallman Philadelphia 119 314 342 47 703 .933 7 Lowe Boston 132 354 411 57 822 .930 8 Parrott Chicago 125 291 384 52 727 .928 9 Childs Cleveland 117 308 380 56 744 .924 10 Ward New York 136 332 455 67 854 .921 11 Grimm Louisville 24 59 75 12 146 .918 12 Ward Washington 79 175 237 40 452 .911 13 Bonner Baltimore 24 57 54 10 121 .909 14 Daly Brooklyn 128 320 358 74 752 .901 15 Radford Washington 21 62 60 14 136 .897 16 Miller St. Louis 18 31 49 11 91 .879 ——————————————————————————————————-

THIRD BASEMEN. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Nash Boston 132 199 271 34 504 .932 2 McGarr Cleveland 127 171 246 35 452 .922 3 Cross Philadelphia 100 177 240 40 457 .91* 4 Davis New York 124 154 251 40 445 .916 5 Dahlen Chicago 55 95 127 23 245 .906 6 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 120 158 30 308 .902 7 Peitz St. Louis 43 61 69 15 145 .896 8 McGarr Baltimore 117 130 246 44 420 .895 9 Shindle Brooklyn 117 190 232 50 472 .894 10 Reilly Philadelphia 27 35 55 12 102 .882 11 Flaherty Louisville 38 43 75 16 134 .880 12 Hartman Pittsburgh 49 65 96 23 184 .875 13 Hassamer Washington 30 64 79 21 164 .872 14 Latham Cincinnati 129 163 256 64 483 .867 15 Denny Louisville 60 84 124 32 240 .866 16 Joyce Washington 98 151 184 52 387 .865 17 Miller St. Louis 52 71 97 33 201 .835 18 Irwin Chicago 68 90 125 43 258 .833 19 Gilbert Brooklyn and Louisville 31 56 61 24 141 .829 20 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St.L. 21 30 39 15 84 .821 ——————————————————————————————————-

SHORT STOPS. ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 195 300 35 530 .934 2 Jennings Baltimore 128 307 497 62 866 .928 3 Richardson Louisville 107 236 363 50 649 .923 4 Smith Cincinnati 128 234 523 72 829 .913 4 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 282 446 69 797 .913 5 McKean Cleveland 130 278 401 66 745 .911 6 Allen Philadelphia 40 93 130 23 246 .907 7 Connaughton Boston 32 60 105 18 183 .901 8 Ely St. Louis 127 279 444 82 805 .898 9 Dahlen Chicago 66 191 257 52 500 .896 10 Long Boston 99 223 371 71 665 .893 11 Sullivan Washington and Phila. 83 199 232 52 483 .892 11 Irwin Chicago 62 122 219 41 382 .892 12 Murphy New York 48 112 148 34 294 .884 13 Shiebeck Pittsburgh and Wash. 62 130 230 48 408 .882 14 Fuller New York 91 211 309 71 591 .879 15 Pfeffer Louisville 15 30 63 13 106 .877 16 Radford Washington 47 127 184 53 364 .851 17 Selbach Washington 18 52 52 23 127 .818 ——————————————————————————————————-

OUTFIELDERS ——————————————————————————————————- P u A C P t s E h e G s r T a r a O i r o n c m u s o t c e e t t r a e n s s s s l s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . ——————————————————————————————————- 1 Dungan Louisville and Chicago 18 30 3 1 34 .970 2 Griffin Brooklyn 106 298 13 12 323 .963 3 Hamilton Philadelphia 131 363 16 15 394 .961 3 Thompson Philadelphia 102 163 11 7 181 .961 4 Weaver Louisville and Pitts. 35 59 8 3 70 .957 5 McAleer Cleveland 64 173 10 9 192 .953 6 Kelley Baltimore 129 274 19 15 308 .951 7 Brodie Baltimore 129 311 11 19 341 .944 8 Shock Brooklyn 34 89 11 6 106 .943 9 Burns Brooklyn 126 212 16 14 242 .942 10 Hogan St. Louis 29 43 5 3 51 .941 11 Blake Cleveland 73 122 17 9 148 .939 11 O'Connor Cleveland 31 85 8 6 99 .939 12 Delehanty Philadelphia 85 224 21 16 261 .938 13 Smith Pittsburgh 125 271 18 20 309 .935 14 Tiernan New York 112 170 11 13 194 .933 15 Donovan Pittsburgh 133 267 24 21 312 .932 16 Dowd St. Louis 115 201 16 16 233 .931 17 Keeler Baltimore 127 220 27 19 266 .928 18 Radford Washington 22 30 8 3 41 .927 19 Ewing Cleveland 52 91 7 8 106 .924 19 Selbach Washington 76 153 7 13 173 .924 20 Duffy Boston 123 313 23 28 364 .923 21 Burke New York 138 269 16 23 308 .922 22 Stenzel Pittsburgh 131 317 22 30 369 .918 22 Canavan Cincinnati 94 191 10 18 219 .918 23 Holliday Cincinnati 121 247 26 25 298 .916 24 Brown Louisville 130 327 23 33 383 .914 24 McCarthy Cincinnati 25 46 7 5 58 .914 25 Burkett Cleveland 124 242 18 24 284 .912 26 VanHaltren New York 139 309 28 33 370 .911 26 Shugart St. Louis 119 276 23 27 326 .911 27 Abbey Washington 129 341 26 36 403 .910 27 Hassamer Washington 68 102 10 11 123 .910 28 Turner Philadelphia 77 143 7 15 165 .909 29 McCarthy Boston 124 286 30 32 348 .908 30 Smith Louisville 39 64 2 7 73 .904 30 Ryan Chicago 108 222 23 26 271 .904 31 Lange Chicago 110 278 30 33 341 .903 32 Twitchell Louisville 51 104 14 13 131 .900 33 Hoy Cincinnati 128 322 27 41 390 .895 34 Treadway Brooklyn 122 274 20 36 330 .891 35 Clark Louisville 76 166 14 23 203 .886 36 Frank St. Louis 77 159 11 23 193 .880 37 G. Tebeau Wash'n and Cleveland 87 182 8 26 216 .879 38 Murphy New York 20 32 3 5 40 .875 38 Virtue Cleveland 20 38 4 6 48 .875 39 Bannon Boston 127 243 42 41 326 .874 40 Wilmont Chicago 135 262 17 46 325 .858 41 O'Rourke Louisville, Wash., St.L. 18 34 2 6 42 .857 42 Decker Chicago 30 55 9 11 75 .853 43 Cooley St. Louis 38 73 1 14 88 .840 44 Nicol Louisville 26 33 3 7 43 .837 45 Anderson Brooklyn 15 21 0 6 27 .777 ——————————————————————————————————-

CATCHERS' AVERAGES. ———————————————————————————————————— P P T u A a o C P t s E s t h e G s r s B a a r a O i r e a l n c m u s o d l c e e t t r l e n s s s s s s t RANK. NAME. CLUB. . . . . . . . ———————————————————————————————————— 1 Zimmer Cleveland 88 285 107 16 13 421 .931 2 Clements Philadelphia 47 182 38 11 7 238 .924 3 Buckley Philadelphia, St. Louis 66 249 72 18 12 351 .914 3 Robinson Baltimore 106 364 96 24 19 503 .914 4 Mack Pittsburgh 63 274 59 22 15 370 .900 5 Merritt Boston, Pitts., Cinn 61 177 72 16 13 278 .895 6 Schriver Chicago 86 294 93 34 13 434 .891 7 Grimm Louisville 75 262 104 29 16 411 .890 8 Miller St. Louis 39 138 36 12 10 196 .887 Murphy Cincinnati 74 197 69 29 5 300 .887 Farrell New York 103 470 138 41 36 685 .887 9 Kittredge Chicago 50 209 40 20 13 282 .883 10 Vaughn Cincinnati 41 155 43 19 8 225 .880 Dailey Brooklyn 58 217 62 21 17 317 .880 11 Ganzel Boston 55 188 57 24 10 279 .878 12 Sugden Pittsburgh 30 104 28 12 7 151 .874 13 Earle Brooklyn and Lousiville 31 89 42 6 13 150 .873 14 Twineham St. Louis 31 147 35 9 18 209 .870 15 O'Connor Cleveland 42 160 37 12 20 229 .860 16 McGuire Washington 102 288 116 39 28 471 .857 17 Clarke Baltimore 22 86 21 10 8 125 .856 Ryan Boston 49 166 49 18 18 251 .856 18 Peitz St. Louis 38 153 52 13 11 229 .851 19 Tenny Boston 18 55 18 11 3 87 .839 20 Wilson New York 32 119 22 20 9 170 .829 21 Weaver Louisville and Pitts. 30 88 27 11 15 141 .815 22 Kinslow Brooklyn 61 114 47 19 23 203 .793 23 Grady Philadelphia 38 101 30 21 20 172 .761 24 Dugdale Washington 30 75 38 20 10 143 .720 ————————————————————————————————————

PITCHERS' RECORD, IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER—1894.

————————————————————————————————————- Heading abbreviations used in this table: G Games Played %W Percent games won excluding tie games RS Runs scored average per game RE Runs earned, average per game %BH Percent of base hits off pitcher BoB Bases given on balls SO No. struck out %FC Percent fielding chances accepted

————————————————————————————————————— Pitcher. Club. G %W RS RE %BH BoB SO %FC ————————————————————————————————————— Breitenst'n St. Louis 49 .551 6.32 3.06 .280 162 138 .902 Colcolough Pittsburgh 15 .533 9.13 4.87 .354 59 19 .844 Cuppy Cleveland 37 .583 7.13 3.24 .298 119 63 .916 Carsey Philadelphia 31 .580 7.93 3.84 .314 95 40 .831 Clarkson St. Louis 26 .308 8.11 4.19 .318 102 42 .794 Chamberlain Cincinnati 19 .526 7.45 3.70 .309 78 57 .729 Dwyer Cincinnati 39 .500 7.3 4.13 .317 97 47 .902 Daub Brooklyn 26 .423 7.89 3.70 .306 71 33 .694 Esper Wash. and Balti. 26 .500 8.3 4.88 .339 59 36 .929 Ehret Pittsburgh 41 .436 7.05 4.17 .306 111 91 .808 Gumbert Pittsburgh 31 .600 7.23 4.87 .326 73 60 .909 Griffith Chicago 32 .656 6.46 3.59 .300 79 67 .901 German New York 17 .471 7.82 3.53 .288 48 15 .842 Gleason St.L. and Balti. 29 .586 6.00 3.45 .312 59 39 .841 Hemming Louis. and Balti. 40 .500 6.02 2.85 .295 140 75 .893 Hawke Baltimore 23 .562 7.17 4.08 .311 58 50 .887 Hutchinson Chicago 30 .467 7.47 3.33 .314 125 60 .716 Hawley St. Louis 47 .413 7.04 3.72 .303 121 117 .708 Inks Balti. and Louis. 24 .478 7.96 4.04 .337 75 37 .846 Killen Pittsburgh 24 .583 6.25 3.87 .303 83 57 .909 Knell Louisville 30 .200 8.46 3.60 .329 97 65 .693 Kennedy Brooklyn 42 .545 7.55 4.21 .302 134 101 .771 Menafee Louis. and Pitts. 37 .351 6.59 3.67 .309 85 78 .904 Mercer Washington 38 .421 7.18 4.09 .303 105 57 .852 Meekin New York 47 .790 4.91 2.38 .253 147 127 .798 Maul Washington 24 .458 8.08 4.08 .307 60 31 .785 Mullane Balt. and Cleve. 17 .470 8.17 4.17 .297 80 44 .740 McMahon Baltimore 34 .735 5.51 3.00 .269 109 55 .869 McGill Chicago 24 .291 8.12 3.83 .321 98 55 .846 Nichols Boston 46 .711 6.78 3.56 .291 108 98 .856 Parrott Cincinnati 37 .459 7.24 3.94 .307 120 61 .824 Rusie New York 49 .734 4.73 2.12 .253 189 204 .867 Stratton Louis. & Chicago 21 .476 9.43 5.24 .366 52 29 .931 Stockdale Washington 16 .375 7.60 3.60 .353 39 8 .825 Stivetts Boston 39 .692 7.49 3.43 .306 100 73 .913 Stein Brooklyn 42 .619 6.26 3.05 .280 162 72 .785 Staley Boston 25 .520 8.88 5.72 .344 55 29 .744 Sullivan Wash. and Cleve. 23 .348 8.26 3.74 .320 97 28 .714 Terry Chicago 19 .278 9.73 4.00 .334 91 43 .782 Taylor Philadelphia 33 .719 5.30 2.76 .281 85 79 .796 Weyhing Philadelphia 33 .545 6.72 3.49 .324 101 79 .845 Wadsworth Louisville 21 .190 9.38 4.66 .360 97 58 .703 Westervelt New York 18 .412 7.39 3.83 .297 62 28 .654 Young Cleveland 47 .532 5.83 3.17 .293 100 100 .902

Tie games—Cuppy, 1; Dwyer, 1; Daub, 1; Ehret, 1; Gumbert, 1; Hawley, 1; Inks, 1; Meekin, 4; Nichols, 1; Stein, 1; Terry, 1; Taylor 1; Westervelt,1. —————————————————————————————————————-

The Batting of 1894.

THE TEAM-WORK AT THE BAT.

It goes to the credit of the leading teams in the pennant race of 1894 that the first three clubs did better team-work at the bat, and more of it, than any previous trio of the kind known in the annals of the League. In fact, competent managers and captains of teams have learned in recent years, by costly experiment, that one of the most potent factors in winning pennants is the method of handling the ash known as good team-work at the bat the very essence of which is devoting all the batsmen's efforts to forwarding runners by base hits, and not by each player's going to the bat simply to build up a high record of base hits without regard to forwarding runners on bases. Suppose the first baseman in a game to take his position at the bat makes a two or three-bagger at the outset. Of course the object of the batsman who succeeds him would be to send the runner home the best way he can, either by a base hit or a sacrifice hit. In striving to do this, the very worst plan, is to try solely for a home run hit, as it only succeeds once in thirty or forty times, and not that against skilful, strategic pitching. Time and again were batsmen, last season, left on third base after opening the innings with a three-bagger, owing to the stupid work of the succeeding batsmen in trying to "line 'em out for a homer," instead of doing real team-work at the bat. Of course, good "sacrifice hitting" is part and parcel of team-work at the bat, but this kind of hitting was not done to any special extent last season by a majority of the League batsmen.

SACRIFICE HITTING.

There is one thing about the point of play in batting known, as "sacrifice hitting" which is not as thoroughly understood as it should be. A majority of batsmen seem to be of the impression that when they are called upon to forward a base runner by a "sacrifice hit," all they have to do is to go to the bat and have themselves put out, so that the base runner at first base may be able to reach second base on the play which puts the batsmen out. This is a very erroneous idea of the true intent of a sacrifice hit. No skilful batsmen ever goes to the bat purposely to hit the ball so as to have himself put out; that would be a very silly move. On the contrary, he takes his bat in hand every time, with the primary object of making a base hit if he possibly can; but in trying for this strongest point in batting, he proposes, to make the desired hit in such a way that if he fails to make the base hit he will at least hit the ball in that direction in the field which will oblige the fielders to throw him out at first base. With this object in view he will always strive for a safe hit to right field, especially by means of a hard "bounder" in that direction, so as to force the second baseman to run to right short to field the ball, in which case the runner at first base will be able to steal to second on the hit in nine cases out of ten. Another good effort for a sacrifice hit is to bunt the ball so that it may roll towards third base, out of reach of the baseman or pitcher. A third sacrifice hit is that of a long high ball to the outfield, which admits of a chance for a catch, but so far out in the field that the runner will have an opportunity to steal a base on the catch. This latter point won't work, of course, when two men are out; moreover, it should be the last point aimed at.

A great deal of bosh has been written—mostly by the admirers of "fungo" hitting—about sacrifice hitting being something that should not be in the game, just as these fungo-hitting-advocates try to write down bunt hitting—the most difficult place hit known to the game. This class of writers think that the very acme of batting skill is the home run hit, a hit which any muscular novice in batting on amateur fields can accomplish without difficulty, and where more home runs are made in a single season than in two seasons by the best managed professional teams. The effort to make home runs leads to more chances for catches by outfielders in one game than there are home runs made in fifty. The exhaustion which follows a home run hit, with its sprinting run of 120 yards at full speed, is entirely lost sight of by the class of patrons of the game who favor home runs. One season, a few years ago, the tail-end team of the League excelled all its rivals in scoring home runs, while the pennant-winning team took the honors and the prize solely on account of its excellence in team-work at the bat. The mere record of the best averages in scoring base hits in batting seems to be regarded by the majority of "cranks" in base ball as the only sound criterion of good batting. This is one of the fallacies of the game, as such a record is unreliable. The only true criterion of good batting is the record which shows the players who excel in the batting which forwards runners; and this record the existing scoring rules, up to 1895, did not admit of, the champion batsman being regarded as the one who excels in his base-hit average, without regard to the runners his base hits forwarded. For instance, one batsman in a game will make three three-baggers, and forward but a single runner by his three hits, while another batsman by a single base hit, a good "bunt" hit and a telling "sacrifice hit," will forward four runners; and yet by the existing scoring rules the record batsman carries off all the honors in the score, and the team-worker at the bat does not get the slightest credit for the effective batting he has done.

SACRIFICE HIT RECORD.

The following is the record of the players in the League teams of 1894 who led in sacrifice hits last season. The names are given in the order of bases stolen, as recorded in the official average tables made up by Mr. Young. The percentage figures would, of course, materially change the order.

———————————————————————- Sacrifice PLAYERS. CLUBS. Games. Hits. ———————————————————————- Donovan Pittsburgh 129 24 Brodie Baltimore 129 24 Beckley Pittsburgh 132 22 Bierbauer Pittsburgh 131 20 Ward New York 136 20 Kelley Baltimore 129 19 Buckley Philadelphia 67 18 Boyle Philadelphia 116 18 Brouthers Baltimore 123 18 Jennings Baltimore 128 18 Shindle Brooklyn 117 17 Cross Philadelphia 120 16 Keeler Baltimore 128 16 Pfeffer Louisville 104 15 Mack Pittsburgh 63 14 McGraw Baltimore 123 14 Brown Louisville 130 14 Wilmot Chicago 135 14 Shugart St. Louis 33 13 Glasscock Pittsburgh 86 13 Quinn St. Louis 106 13 Ely St. Louis 127 13 Abbey Washington 129 13 Van Haltren New York 139 13 Frank St. Louis 80 12 Weaver Pittsburgh 90 12 Tredway Brooklyn 122 12 Lyons Pittsburgh 72 11 G. Tebeau Cleveland 105 11 Robinson Baltimore 106 11 Hay Cincinnati 128 11 Latham Cincinnati 130 11 McKean Cleveland 130 11 Menafee Pittsburgh 37 10 Ehret Pittsburgh 41 10 Blake Cleveland 73 10 Hassamer Washington 116 10 Dahlen Chicago 121 10 Duffy Boston 124 10 Burkett Cleveland 124 10 E. Smith Pittsburgh 125 10 Corcoran Brooklyn 129 10 Burke New York 138 10 ———————————————————————

According to the above table Pittsburgh led with a total of 146 sacrifice hits, Baltimore being next with 120, followed by Philadelphia with 52, New York 43, Cleveland 42, Brooklyn 39, St. Louis 38, Louisville 29, Chicago 24, Washington 23, Cincinnati 22 and Boston 10.

A record connected with the batting of each season is that showing the number of victories and defeats, marked by single and double figure scores. This data shows, to a considerable extent, how the pitching stands in relation to the batting, as to whether the one or the other dominates too much in the efforts of the rulemakers to equal the powers of attack and defence. If the pitching has the best of it than we have a predominance of the undesirable class of pitchers' games, in which the minority of the fielders only bear the brunt of the contest. On the other hand, if the batting rules the roost, then we have too much of the old slugging style of play, in which the outfielders are mostly brought into play, and but little chance to see skilful base running or splendid infielding is afforded. Here are some records which show what was done in 1894 in this respect:

The three leading teams in the pennant race of 1894 scored a total of 198 single figure games to 194 double figure games. The record in detail being as follows:

SINGLE FIGURE. —————————————————————- Baltimore single figure victories 40 Baltimore single figure defeats 18 New York single figure victories 59 New York single figure defeats 25 Boston single figure victories 34 Boston single figure defeats 22 —- Totals 198 —————————————————————-

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

This record includes games counted out or forfeited.

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

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

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

The Batting Averages.

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

Here, is the record above referred to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BASE RUNNING.

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

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

#The Base Running of 1894.#

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE STOLEN BASE RECORD OF 1894.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LEADING BASE STEALERS OF EACH CLUB.

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

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

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

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

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

THE FIELDING OF 1894.

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

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

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

Single Figure Games.

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

The Umpiring of 1894.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editorial Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

* * * * *

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

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

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

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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

* * * * *

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