Chapter IX: Introduction (7)

----------------------------------------------- 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