Spalding's Baseball Guide and Official League Book for 1895

by Unknown

THE LOUISVILLE CLUB'S RECORD.

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

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

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

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

Interesting Pitching Records.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hints to the Pitchers of 1895.

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

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

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