Spalding's Baseball Guide and Official League Book for 1895

by Unknown

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.