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.