Chapter 17

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