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.