—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS P h i P C L B l C i S i o a N a B l t t n u l e d r e t C . c i WASHINGTON t w B e o v s h i s i o l o e b i L n v vs. m Y s p k l u c o n i o o t h l a r a u a l r r o i y n g g i t l e k n a n d h o s i e Grand Total Total Total —————————————————————————————————————- Series won 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Series lost 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 9 Series tied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Series unfinished 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "Chicago" victories 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "Chicago" defeats 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 Single figure victories 0 1 2 3 1 7 4 0 4 3 5 5 21 28 Single figure defeats 3 7 0 3 3 16 4 3 1 2 5 3 18 34 Double figure victories 1 1 1 1 2 6 0 4 1 3 0 3 11 17 Double figure defeats 8 3 9 5 6 31 4 5 6 4 2 1 22 53 —————————————————————————————————————-
The "Senators" won but one series in the whole campaign, and that was with the Louisvilles. They managed to tie with the St. Louis "Browns," but all the rest knocked them out—the Baltimores by 11 to 1.
THE LOUISVILLE CLUB'S CAMPAIGN.
The Louisville club started in the race with better prospects than they had for years past, they being tied for first place on April 20th, but they only remained in the first division a few days, after which they took up their home position among the tail-enders, which they occupied from April 30th to September 30th, never once getting back to the ranks of the first division. Gradually, during the May campaign they worked their way down towards the last ditch, they having a close fight for the ditch with Washington during June. But July saw them rolled into the tail-end position, and there they remained until the ending of the championship campaign. The Louisvilles had the consolation of tieing the the St. Louis "Browns" in their series, and of "Chicagoing" the Boston champions, and also in defeating them in another game by 11 to 1. Here is their record:
THE LOUISVILLE CLUB'S RECORD.
—————————————————————————————————————-
EASTERN CLUBS. WESTERN CLUBS.
P
h
i W P C
B l a C i i
a N a B s l t S n
l e d r h e t C t c
LOUISVILLE t w B e o i v s h . i
i o l o n e b i L n
vs. m Y s p k g l u c o n
o o t h l t a r a u a
r r o i y o n g g i t
e k n a n n d h o s i
Totals Total
—————————————————————————————————————-
Victories 2 0 2 3 4 4 15 3 3 4 6 5 21
Defeats 10 12 10 8 8 8 56 8 9 8 6 7 38
Games played 12 12 12 11 12 12 71 11 12 12 12 12 59
Per cent. of
Victories .167 .000 .167 .273 .333 .333 .211 .273 .250 .333 .500 .417 .356
—————————————————————————————————————-
—————————————————————————————————————- EASTERN CLUBS WESTERN CLUBS. P h i W P C B l a C i i a N a B s l t S n l e d r h e t C t c LOUISVILLE t w B e o i v s h . i i o l o n e b i L n vs. m Y s p k g l u c o n o o t h l t a r a u a r r o i y o n g g i t e k n a n n d h o s i Grand Total Total Total —————————————————————————————————————- Series won 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Series lost 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 0 1 4 10 Series tied 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Series unfinished 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 "Chicago" victories 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 "Chicago" defeats 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 3 Single figure victories 1 0 1 0 1 3 6 1 3 3 6 5 18 24 Single figure defeats 8 8 5 2 4 5 32 6 7 6 4 6 29 61 Double figure victories 1 0 1 3 3 1 9 2 0 1 0 0 3 12 Double figure defeats 2 5 5 6 4 3 25 2 2 2 2 1 9 34 —————————————————————————————————————-
The nearest the Louisvilles came to a series victory was in their series with the St. Louis club, which they tied; all the others they lost, they being "shut out" by the "Giants," with which club they lost thirteen successive games, one of which was thrown out. The Club Management of 1894.
The management of the twelve League clubs in 1894 was, in but few instances, in advance of that of 1893; and in a minority of cases it was worse. The experience of the past season in the management of club teams, points out the indisputable fact that the majority of managers are blind to the folly of condoning drinking offences in the ranks, for one thing, and equally ignorant of the damaging effects, in lessening the reputable patronage of their grounds, of countenancing that phase of "hoodlumism" in teams known as "kicking against the decisions of umpires." Despite of the costly experience of the past five years in the countenancing of drunkards in the League ranks, we see, this season of 1895, club teams including players notorious for their old drunken habits. Why managers cannot perceive the folly of re-engaging such men is a mystery. No matter what their skill at the bat or in the field may be, their drinking habits, with the demoralizing effect on the teams at large which follows, more than offset the advantage of their alleged ability in the field. Despite this obvious fact, however, club officials—either presidents, directors or managers—still blunder on in having these drunkards on their teams, even after condoning their offences time and again, on the promise of reform, which in no single instance has ever taken place that I am aware of. But surpassing this folly, is that of engaging ugly and vicious tempered players for their teams, who are simply demoralizing agents in any team on which they are engaged. These ill-tempered fellows are not only death to necessary discipline, but they are sure to find occasions to form cliques in a team, which war against the best interests of the club at large, and are obnoxious in the extreme to the pennant winning rule of playing for the side, a rule as important to the success of a club team in a pennant race, as the reserve rule is to the life of the professional club business at large. Bad management of clubs involves a variety of blunders, not only in the running of the team without regard to business principles—sadly neglected by a majority of the League clubs in 1894—but especially in the making up of teams in the spring months, in which one blunder is conspicuous, viz., that of selecting players for each team without regard to their ability to play in harmony together, but solely by the records made in the unreliable table of averages of the past season, in which everything in the way of scoring figures tends to aid the mere record player and throws obstacles in the way of team work players' records. Another managerial blunder is shown in the gathering together of a long list of signed players, with the view of selecting a strong team of a dozen players from the crowd for the serious work of the campaign. For instance, in the makeup of many of the League teams of 1894, the blunder of getting together six or eight pitchers and occupying the whole of the early part of the season's campaign in experiments with them was positive folly. It has never paid in a single instance. It was, in fact, death to the success of at least four League teams last season, Cincinnati in particular. Many of last year's team managers failed to realize the important fact that in testing the merits of pitchers in the spring season they need to be given a fair trial, and not dismiss them after the hasty judgment of their ability of a few games of trial. Pitchers need to be thoroughly tested before they are released, after engagement, and this testing process cannot at the shortest be done in less than a month's trial. No pitcher can do his best while in doubt all the while as to the result of a single day's play on his engagement. Five pitchers are amply sufficient to begin a season with, and at most three catchers. But one of the greatest and most costly blunders in team management made in 1894 was that of encouraging "hoodlumism" by the countenancing of blackguard kicking, in defiance of the laws of the game, which presidents and directors, as well as managers and captains, were alike guilty of to a more or less extent. The rules of the game positively prohibit any player of a nine on the field from disputing any decision of the umpire except the captain, and he only in certain exceptional cases, and yet not only did captains of teams allow this rule to be violated in every game of the season, but they were openly countenanced in it by not only their managers, but in many cases by club presidents and directors. Under such circumstances is it any wonder that the season of 1894 stands on record as being marked by more disgraceful kicking, rowdy play, blackguard language and brutal play than that of any season since the League was organized? And all this was the result of a neglect of business principles in club management, and in the blunders in managing teams committed by incompetent managers and captains—an arraignment of the National League which we hope never to have to record again.