Spalding’s Baseball Guide and Official League Book for 1889 (page 2)

| | | m | m | u |
| | | e | e | n |
| | | s | s | s |
| | | | | |
| | | P | a | S |
| | | l | t | c |
R | | | a | | o |
a | | | y | B | r |
n | | | e | a | e |Ave.
k | | | d | t | d |per
. |NAME. |CLUB | . | . | . |Game. –+————+————+—+—+—+—– 1| Anson |Chicago |134|515|101| 0.75 2| Beckley |Pittsburg | 71|283| 35| 0.49 3| Ryan |Chicago |130|549|115| 0.88 4| Kelly |Boston |105|440| 85| 0.81 5|{Ewing |New York |103|415| 83| 0.80 |{Brouthers |Detroit |129|522|118| 0.91 6| Quinn |Boston | 38|156| 19| 0.50 7| White |Detroit |125|527| 75| 0.60 8| Johnston |Boston |135|585|102| 0.75 9| Tiernan |New York |113|443| 75| 0.66 10| Connor |New York |134|481| 98| 0.63 11| Richardson |Detroit | 57|266| 60| 1.05 12|{Van Haltren|Chicago | 81|318| 46| 0.56 |{Nash |Boston |135|526| 71| 0.52
13| Duffy |Chicago | 71|298| 60| 0.84 14| Thompson |Detroit | 55|238| 51| 0.92 15| Hines |Indianapolis|132|513| 84| 0.63 16|{Rowe |Detroit |105|451| 62| 0.59 |{Miller |Pittsburg |103|404| 50| 0.48 17| Conway |Detroit | 44|167| 28| 0.63 18| Hoy |Washington |136|503| 77| 0.56 19|{Buckley |Indianapolis| 71|260| 27| 0.38 |{O’Rourke |New York |107|409| 50| 0.46 20| Brown |New York | 17| 59| 4| 0.23 21| Glasscock |Indianapolis|112|442| 63| 0.56 22|{Hanlon |Detroit |108|459| 64| 0.59 |{McGuire |Phil. & | 15| 64| 17| 0.46 | |Detr’t. | | | |
23| Bennett |Detroit | 72|258| 32| 0.44 24|{Dunlap |Pittsburg | 81|317| 41| 0.50 |{Denny |Indianapolis|126|524| 92| 0.73 25| Nicholson |Detroit | 24| 85| 11| 0.46 26| Sutcliffe |Detroit | 49|191| 17| 0.34 27| Pettit |Chicago | 43|169| 24| 0.56 28| Ward |New York |122|510| 70| 0.57 29|{Williamson |Chicago |132|452| 75| 0.57 |{Beaton |Detroit | 16| 56| 8| 0.50 30| Pfeffer |Chicago |135|517| 90| 0.66 31| Ganzell |Detroit | 93|386| 45| 0.48 32|{Clements |Philadelphia| 85|323| 26| 0.30 |{Brown |Boston |107|426| 62| 0.58
|{Ray |Boston | 50|206| 26| 0.52 33| Farrar |Philadelphia|130|504| 53| 0.40 34|{Sanders |Philadelphia| 57|236| 27| 0.47 |{Getzein |Detroit | 45|167| 14| 0.31 |{Slattery |NewYork |103|391| 49| 0.47 35| Twitchell |Detroit |130|524| 71| 0.54 36| Carroll |Pittsburg | 90|362| 61| 0.63 37| Bassett |Indianapolis|128|481| 57| 0.44 38|{Hornung |Boston |107|431| 61| 0.57 |{Wise |Boston |104|417| 66| 0.63
39|{Burns |Chicago |134|483| 60| 0.44 |{Andrews |Philadelphia|123|524| 74| 0.60 |{Myers |Indianapolis| 66|248| 35| 0.53 40| Shoeneck |Indianapolis| 48|169| 15| 0.31 41|{Sullivan |Chicago | 75|314| 40| 0.53 |{Fogarty |Philadelphia|120|451| 71| 0.59 42| Kuhne |Pittsburg |137|520| 60| 0.44 43| Sunday |Pittsburg |119|501| 68| 0.57 44| Farrell |Chicago | 63|241| 34| 0.54 45|{Wood |Philadelphia|105|429| 67| 0.63 |{Coleman |Pittsburg |115|434| 48| 0.41 46|{Tate |Boston | 40|148| 18| 0.45 |{Healy |Indianapolis| 37|131| 14| 0.38 47| Delehanty |Philadelphia| 74|290| 40| 0.54 48| Richardson |New York |135|561| 82| 0.60 49|{Daily |Washington |110|453| 56| 0.50 |{O’Brien |Washington |133|528| 42| 0.31 50|{Wilmot |Washington |119|473| 61| 0.51 |{Dalrymple |Pittsburg | 56|223| 19| 0.33 51| Irwin |Washington | 37|126| 14| 0.38 52|{Irwin |Philadelphia|124|444| 51| 0.41 |{Seery |Indianapolis|133|500| 87| 0.65 |{Gore |New York | 64|254| 37| 0.57 53|{McGeachy |Indianapolis|118|452| 45| 0.38 |{Esterbrook |Indianapolis| 64|246| 21| 0.32 |{Whitney |NewYork | 90|328| 28| 0.31 54|{Sutton |Boston | 28|110| 16| 0.57 |{Daily |Indianapolis| 57|202| 14| 0.24 55|{Mulvey |Philadelphia| 99|394| 37| 0.37 |{Radbourne |Boston | 24| 79| 6| 0.25 56|{Cleveland |N.Y.& Pitts.| 40|145| 17| 0.42 |{Shomberg |Indianapolis| 29|112| 11| 0.38 57| Darling |Chicago | 20| 75| 13| 0.65 58| Maul |Pittsburg | 73|255| 21| 0.29 59|{Myers |Washington |132|502| 47| 0.35 |{Smith |Pittsburg |130|477| 61| 0.44 60| Hallman |Philadelphia| 16| 63| 5| 0.31 61| Gleason |Philadelphia| 23| 83| 4| 0.17 62| Campau |Detroit | 70|251| 28| 0.40 63|{Scheffler |Detroit | 27| 94| 17| 0.63 |{Burdock |Boston | 21| 79| 5| 0.24
64| Donnelly |Washington |122|428| 43| 0.35 65| Widner |Washington | 15| 60| 4| 0.26 66| Morrill |Boston |134|486| 60| 0.44 67| Arundel |Washington | 16| 51| 2| 0.12 68|{Clarkson |Boston | 54|205| 20| 0.37 |{Fields |Pittsburg | 44|169| 22| 0.50 69|{Schriver |Philadelphia| 39|134| 15| 0.38 |{McShannic |Pittsburg | 26| 98| 5| 0.19 70| Bastian |Philadelphia| 80|275| 31| 0.38 71| Daily |Chicago | 65|219| 34| 0.52 72| Welch |New York | 47|169| 16| 0.34 73| Mack |Washington | 85|300| 49| 0.57 74| Schock |Washington | 90|317| 46| 0.51 75|{Fuller |Washington | 49|170| 11| 0.22 |{Shreve |Indianapolis| 36|115| 10| 0.28 76|{Flint |Chicago | 22| 77| 6| 0.27 |{Hatfield |New York | 27|105| 7| 0.26 77| O’Rourke |Boston | 20| 74| 3| 0.15 78| Buffinton |Philadelphia| 44|156| 13| 0.29 79| Whitney |Washington | 42|141| 13| 0.31 80| Murphy |New York | 28|106| 11| 0.39 81| Klusman |Boston | 28|107| 9| 0.32 82|{Madden |Boston | 19| 67| 7| 0.36 |{Krock |Chicago | 39|134| 9| 0.23
83|{Deasley |Washington | 34|127| 6| 0.17 |{Wells |Detroit | 16| 57| 5| 0.31
84| Glenn |Boston | 19| 65| 8| 0.42 85| Casey |Philadelphia| 33|118| 11| 0.33 86| Baldwin |Chicago | 30|106| 11| 0.37 87|{Sowders |Boston | 35|122| 14| 0.40 |{Burdick |Indianapolis| 20| 68| 6| 0.30 |{Foster |New York | 37|136| 15| 0.40 88| Boyle |Indianapolis| 37|125| 13| 0.35 89| Galvin |Pittsburg | 50|175| 6| 0.12 90| Gruber |Detroit | 27| 92| 8| 0.29 91| O’Day |Washington | 47|166| 6| 0.12 92| Staley |Pittsburg | 24| 85| 6| 0.25 93| Keefe |New York | 51|181| 10| 0.19 94| Titcomb |New York | 23| 82| 6|0.26 95| Morris |Pittsburg | 54|186| 12|0.22

| | F | | | | |
| | I | | | | |
| | r | | | | |
| | s | | | | B |
| | t | | T | | a |
| | | P | o | | s |
| | B | e | t | | e |
| | a | r | a | | s |
| | s | c | l | | |
| | e | e | | | S |
| | | n | B | | t |
R | | H | t | a | | o |
a | | i | a | s | | l |
n | | t | g | e |Ave. | e |Ave. k | | s | e | s |per | n |per
. |NAME. | . | . | . |Game.| . |Game. –+————+—+—-+—+—–+—+—– 1| Anson |177|.343|252| 1.88| 28| 0.20 2| Beckley | 97|.342|121| 1.70| 20| 0.28 3| Ryan |182|.331|285| 2.19| 60| 0.46 4| Kelly |140|.318|205| 1.95| 56| 0.53 5|{Ewing |127|.306|195| 1.89| 53| 0.51 |{Brouthers |160|.306|270| 1.86| 34| 0.26 6| Quinn | 47|.301| 43| 1.92| 12| 0.31 7| White |157|.298|200| 1.60| 12| 0.09 8| Johnston |173|.295|276| 2.04| 35| 0.26 9| Tiernan |130|.293|182| 1.61| 52| 0.46 10| Connor |140|.291|224| 1.67| 27| 0.20 11| Richardson | 77|.289|117| 2.05| 13| 0.23 12|{Van Haltren| 90|.283|130| 1.60| 21| 0.26 |{Nash |149|.283|209| 1.54| 20| 0.15 13| Duffy | 84|.282|121| 1.70| 13| 0.18 14| Thompson | 67|.281|111| 2.02| 5| 0.09 15| Hines |144|.280|186| 1.40| 31| 0.23 16|{Rowe |125|.277|168| 1.60| 10| 0.09 |{Miller |112|.277|139| 1.35| 27| 0.26 17| Conway | 46|.275| 59| 1.34| 1| 0.02 18| Hoy |138|.274|171| 1.26| 82| 0.60 19|{Buckley | 71|.273| 95| 1.33| 4| 0.05 |{O’Rourke |112|.273|154| 1.44| 25| 0.23 20| Brown | 16|.271| 17| 1.00| 1| 0.06 21| Glasscock |119|.269|145| 1.29| 48| 0.43 22|{Hanlon |122|.265|157| 1.45| 38| 0.35 |{McGuire | 17|.265| 23| 1.35| 0| 0.00 23| Bennett | 68|.263|102| 1.41| 4| 0.05 24|{Dunlap | 83|.261|106| 1.30| 24| 0.29 |{Denny |137|.261|220| 1.74| 32| 0.25 25| Nicholson | 22|.259| 33| 1.37| 6| 0.25 26| Sutcliffe | 49|.257| 59| 1.20| 6| 0.12 27| Pettit | 43|.254| 62| 1.44| 7| 0.16 28| Ward |128|.251|154| 1.26| 38| 0.31 29|{Williamson |113|.250|175| 1.32| 25| 0.19 |{Beaton | 14|.250| 25| 1.56| 1| 0.06 30| Pfeffer |129|.249|193| 1.43| 64| 0.47 31| Ganzell | 96|.248|119| 1.28| 12| 0.13 32|{Clements | 80|.247|100| 1.17| 3| 0.03 |{Brown |104|.247|155| 1.45| 46| 0.43 |{Ray | 51|.247| 65| 1.30| 7| 0.14
33| Farrar |124|.246|155| 1.19| 21| 0.17 34|{Sanders | 58|.245| 74| 1.29| 13| 0.22 |{Getzein | 41|.245| 50| 1.11| 6| 0.13 |{Slattery | 96|.245|122| 1.18| 26| 0.25 35| Twitchell |128|.244|167| 1.28| 14| 0.10 36| Carroll | 88|.243|117| 1.22| 18| 0.19 37| Bassett |116|.241|147| 1.15| 24| 0.19 38|{Hornung |103|.239|134| 1.25| 29| 0.27 |{Wise |100|.239|155| 1.49| 33| 0.31 39|{Burns |115|.238|152| 1.13| 34| 0.25 |{Andrews |125|.238|157| 1.27| 35| 0.28 |{Myers | 59|.238| 72| 1.09| 28| 0.42 40| Shoeneck | 40|.237| 44| 0.91| 11| 0.23 41|{Sullivan | 74|.235|117| 1.56| 9| 0.12 |{Fogarty |106|.235|137| 1.14| 58| 0.48 42| Kuhne |122|.234|175| 1.28| 34| 0.25 43| Sunday |117|.233|140| 1.18| 71| 0.59 44| Farrell | 56|.232| 80| 1.27| 8| 0.12 45|{Wood | 99|.230|154| 1.46| 20| 0.19 |{Coleman |100|.230|118| 1.02| 15| 0.13 46|{Tate | 34|.229| 44| 1.10| 3| 0.07 |{Healy | 30|.229| 42| 1.10| 5| 0.13
47| Delehanty | 66|.227| 82| 1.10| 38| 0.51 48| Richardson |127|.226|176| 1.30| 35| 0.26 49|{Daily |102|.225|139| 1.26| 44| 0.40 |{O’Brien |119|.225|167| 1.25| 10| 0.08 50|{Wilmot |106|.224|146| 1.22| 46| 0.38 |{Dalrymple | 50|.224| 64| 1.14| 7| 0.12 51| Irwin | 28|.222| 36| 0.97| 15| 0.40 52|{Irwin | 98|.220|115| 0.92| 19| 0.15 |{Seery |110|.220|163| 1.23| 80| 0.60 |{Gore | 56|.220| 72| 1.12| 11| 0.17 53|{McGeachy | 99|.219|115| 0.97| 49| 0.41 |{Esterbrook | 54|.219| 61| 0.95| 11| 0.17 |{Whitney | 72|.219| 87| 0.96| 7| 0.07 54|{Sutton | 24|.218| 32| 1.14| 10| 0.35 |{Daily | 44|.218| 52| 0.91| 15| 0.26 55|{Mulvey | 85|.215|105| 1.06| 18| 0.12 |{Radbourne | 17|.215| 18| 0.75| 4| 0.16 56|{Cleveland | 31|.214| 51| 1.27| 4| 0.10 |{Shomberg | 24|.214| 33| 1.13| 6| 0.20 57| Darling | 16|.213| 27| 1.35| 0| 0.00 58| Maul | 54|.211| 71| 0.97| 9| 0.12 59|{Myers |104|.207|139| 1.05| 20| 0.15 |{Smith | 99|.207|131| 1.00| 37| 0.27 60| Hallman | 13|.206| 19| 1.19| 1| 0.06 61| Gleason | 17|.205| 20| 0.87| 3| 0.13 62| Campau | 51|.203| 65| 0.93| 27| 0.38 63|{Scheffler | 19|.202| 24| 0.89| 4| 0.15 |{Burdock | 16|.202| 16| 0.76| 1| 0.05 64| Donnelly | 86|.201|104| 0.85| 44| 0.36 65| Widner | 12|.200| 12| 0.80| 1| 0.06 66| Mo*rill | 96|.197|135| 1.00| 21| 0.15 67| Arundel | 10|.196| 12| 0.75| 1| 0.06 68|{Clarkson | 40|.195| 53| 0.98| 5| 0.09 |{Fields | 33|.195| 47| 1.07| 9| 0.20 69|{Schriver | 26|.194| 36| 0.92| 2| 0.05 |{McShannic | 19|.194| 20| 0.77| 3| 0.11 70| Bastian | 53|.192| 62| 0.77| 12| 0.15 71| Daily | 42|.191| 54| 0.83| 10| 0.15 72| Welch | 32|.189| 42| 0.89| 4| 0.08 73| Mack | 56|.186| 77| 0.90| 31| 0.36 74| Schock | 58|.183| 77| 0.85| 23| 0.25 75|{Fuller | 31|.182| 38| 0.77| 6| 0.12 |{Shreve | 21|.182| 24| 0.66| 5| 0.14 76|{Flint | 14|.181| 17| 0.77| 1| 0.04 |{Hatfield | 19|.181| 20| 0.74| 8| 0.29 77| O’Rourke | 13|.175| 13| 0.65| 2| 0.10 78| Buffinton | 27|.173| 32| 0.72| 1| 0.02 79| Whitney | 24|.170| 27| 0.64| 3| 0.07 80| Murphy | 18|.169| 20| 0.71| 3| 0.10 81| Klusman | 18|.168| 28| 1.00| 3| 0.11 82|{Madden | 11|.164| 11| 0.58| 4| 0.21 |{Krock | 22|.164| 25| 0.64| 1| 0.02
83|{Deasley | 20|.157| 23| 0.67| 2| 0.06 |{Wells | 9|.157| 10| 0.63| 0| 0.00
84| Glenn | 10|.154| 12| 0.63| 0| 0.00 85| Casey | 18|.152| 22| 0.66| 2| 0.06 86| Baldwin | 16|.151| 24| 0.80| 4| 0.13 87|{Sowders | 18|.147| 20| 0.57| 1| 0.03 |{Burdick | 10|.147| 11| 0.55| 0| 0.00 |{Foster | 20|.147| 27| 0.73| 13| 0.35 88| Boyle | 18|.144| 21| 0.57| 1| 0.03 89| Galvin | 25|.143| 31| 0.62| 4| 0.08 90| Gruber | 13|.141| 17| 0.63| 0| 0.00 91| O’Day | 23|.138| 25| 0.53| 3| 0.06 92| Staley | 11|.129| 12| 0.50| 2| 0.08 93| Keefe | 23|.127| 33| 0.64| 3| 0.06 94| Titcomb | 10|.122| 13| 0.56| 5| 0.21 95| Morris | 19|.102| 23| 0.42| 2| 0.04

FIELDING RECORD.

Of Players, Members of League Clubs, who have taken part in fifteen or more Championship Games, Season of 1888.

FIRST BASEMEN.
| | | | | T | F | | P | | | | N | i | i | | e
| | | | u | m | e | T | r | | | G | m | e | l | o | c
| | | a | b | s | d | t | e | | | m | e | | i | a | n
| | | e | r | A | n | l | t | | | s | | s | g | | a A
| | | | P | s | | C | g c | | | P | u | i | E | h | e c | | | l | t | s | r | a | e
R | | | a | | t | r | n | p a | | | y | O | i | o | c | t n | | | e | u | n | r | e | e k | | | d | t | g | s | s | d . |NAME. |CLUB. | . | . | . | . | . | . –+———–+————+—+—-+—+—+—-+—– 1| Anderson |Chicago |134|1314| 65| 20|1399| .985 2| Connor |New York |133|1337| 43| 26|1406| .981 3| Beckley |Pittsburg | 71| 744| 19| 16| 779| .979 | Farrar |Philadelphia|130|1345| 53| 30|1428| .979 | Morrill |Boston |134|1398| 72| 31|1501| .979 4| Esterbrook|Indianapolis| 61| 628| 20| 16| 654| .976 5| Coleman |Pittsburg | 25| 235| 4| 6| 245| .975 | O’Brien |Washington |132|1272| 38| 33|1343| .975 6| Shoeneck |Indianapolis| 48| 501| 16| 14| 531| .973 7| Brouthers |Detroit |129|1345| 48| 42|1435| .970 8| Maul |Pittsburg | 37| 392| 9| 13| 414| .968 9| Shomberg |Indianapolis| 15| 136| 0| 5| 141| .964

SECOND BASEMEN.
| | | | | T | F | | P | | | | N | i | i | | e
| | | | u | m | e | T | r | | | G | m | e | l | o | c
| | | a | b | s | d | t | e | | | m | e | | i | a | n
| | | e | r | A | n | l | t | | | s | | s | g | | a A
| | | | P | s | | C | g c | | | P | u | i | E | h | e c | | | l | t | s | r | a | e
R | | | a | | t | r | n | p a | | | y | O | i | o | c | t n | | | e | u | n | r | e | e k | | | d | t | g | s | s | d . |NAME. |CLUB. | . | . | . | . | . | . –+———–+————+—+—-+—+—+—-+—– 1| Bastian |Philidelphia| 65| 145|258| 23| 427| .946 2| Richardson|New York |135| 321|423| 46| 790| .942 3| Danlap |Pittsburg | 81| 237|276| 33| 546| .939 4| Nicholson |Detroit | 24| 44| 71| 8| 123| .935 5| Pfeffer |Chicago |135| 421|457| 65| 943| .931 6| Richardson|Detroit | 57| 173|185| 29| 387| .925 7| Bassett |Indianapolis|128| 250|423| 57| 730| .921 8| Meyers |Washington |132| 271|399| 60| 730| .918 9| Kinsman |Boston | 28| 63| 75| 13| 151| .914 10| Quinn | ” | 38| 97|115| 20| 232| .913 11| Smith |Pittsburg | 56| 131|184| 33| 348| .905 12| Nash |Boston | 31| 90|108| 21| 219| .904 13| Burdock | ” | 21| 53| 68| 13| 134| .903 14| Ganzell |Detroit | 51| 110|168| 31| 309| .899 15| Delehanty |Philadelphia| 56| 129|170| 44| 343| .871

THIRD BASEMEN.
| | | | | T | F | | P | | | | N | i | i | | e
| | | | u | m | e | T | r | | | G | m | e | l | o | c
| | | a | b | s | d | t | e | | | m | e | | i | a | n
| | | e | r | A | n | l | t | | | s | | s | g | | a A
| | | | P | s | | C | g c | | | P | u | i | E | h | e c | | | l | t | s | r | a | e
R | | | a | | t | r | n | p a | | | y | O | i | o | c | t n | | | e | u | n | r | e | e k | | | d | t | g | s | s | d . |NAME. |CLUB. | . | . | . | . | . | . –+———–+————+—+—-+—+—+—-+—– 1| Nash |Boston |104| 139|250| 37| 426| .913 2| Kuhne |Pittsburg | 74| 95|166| 26| 287| .909 3| McShannie | ” | 26| 39| 49| 9| 97| .907 4| Burns |Chicago |134| 194|273| 49| 516| .905 5| Denny |Indianapolis| 96| 158|214| 44| 416| .894 6| Mulvey |Philadelphia| 99| 87|174| 32| 293| .890 7| Whitney |New York | 90| 90|184| 35| 309| .886 8| Donnelly |Washington |117| 126|230| 51| 407| .874 9| Sutton |Boston | 27| 82| 47| 13| 92| .858 10| White |Detroit |125| 146|244| 65| 455| .857 11| Ewing |New York | 21| 32| 29| 15| 76| .802 12| Buckley |Indianapolis| 21| 17| 28| 12| 57| .789 13| Cleveland |NY & Pitts’g| 40| 27| 57| 23| 107| .785

SHORT STOPS.
| | | | | T | F | | P | | | | N | i | i | | e
| | | | u | m | e | T | r | | | G | m | e | l | o | c
| | | a | b | s | d | t | e | | | m | e | | i | a | n
| | | e | r | A | n | l | t | | | s | | s | g | | a A
| | | | P | s | | C | g c | | | P | u | i | E | h | e c | | | l | t | s | r | a | e
R | | | a | | t | r | n | p a | | | y | O | i | o | c | t n | | | e | u | n | r | e | e k | | | d | t | g | s | s | d . |NAME. |CLUB. | . | . | . | . | . | . –+———–+————+—+—-+—+—+—-+—– 1| Denny |Indianapolis| 23| 65| 88| 14| 167| .916 2| Kuhne |Pittsburgh | 63| 112|159| 25| 296| .915 3| Smith |Pittsburgh | 74| 90|246| 37| 373| .900 3|{Glasscock |Indianapolis|109| 201|334| 59| 594| .900 |{Irwin |Philadelphia|121| 204|374| 64| 642| .900 |{Shock |Washington | 52| 84|168| 28| 280| .900 |{Sutcliffe |Detroit | 24| 39| 88| 14| 141| .900 4| Williamson|Chicago |132| 120|375| 62| 557| .888 5| Wise |Boston | 89| 179|271| 57| 507| .887 6| Ray |Boston | 47| 58|130| 26| 214| .878 7| Rowe |Detroit |103| 133|312| 72| 517| .860 8| Irwin |Washington | 27| 54| 87| 23| 164| .859 9| Ward |New York |122| 185|331| 86| 602| .857 10| Fuller |Washington | 47| 67|140| 38| 245| .854

FIELDERS
| | | | | T | F | | P | | | | N | i | i | | e
| | | | u | m | e | T | r | | | G | m | e | l | o | c
| | | a | b | s | d | t | e | | | m | e | | i | a | n
| | | e | r | A | n | l | t | | | s | | s | g | | a A
| | | | P | s | | C | g c | | | P | u | i | E | h | e c | | | l | t | s | r | a | e
R | | | a | | t | r | n | p a | | | y | O | i | o | c | t n | | | e | u | n | r | e | e k | | | d | t | g | s | s | d . |NAME. |CLUB. | . | . | . | . | . | . –+————+————+—+—-+—+—+—-+—– 1|{O’Rourke |New York | 87| 136| 13| 6| 149| .959 |{Tiernan |New York |113| 174| 16| 8| 198| .959 2| Glenn |Boston | 19| 42| 2| 2| 46| .956 3| Sanders |Philadelphia| 25| 38| 5| 2| 46| .955 4| Hornung |Boston |107| 151| 10| 9| 170| .947 5| Maul |Pittsburgh | 34| 59| 8| 4| 71| .943 6| Seery |Indianapolis|133| 258| 19| 18| 295| .939 7| Sunday |Pittsburgh |119| 292| 27| 21| 340| .938 8|{Campau |Detroit | 70| 101| 10| 8| 119| .932 |{McGeachy |Indianapolis|117| 194| 27| 16| 237| .932 9| Petit |Chicago | 43| 46| 8| 4| 58| .931 10| Fogarty |Philadelphia|116| 239| 26| 20| 285| .929 11|{Sullivan |Chicago | 75| 114| 13| 10| 137| .927 |{Coleman |Pittsburgh | 90| 160| 20| 14| 194| .927 12|{Slattery |New York |103| 187| 16| 18| 221| .918 |{Hanlon |Detroit |108| 230| 7| 21| 258| .918 13| Miller |Pittsburgh | 32| 58| 7| 6| 71| .915 14| Daily |Washington |100| 179| 19| 19| 217| .912 15| Hines |Indianapolis|124| 255| 13| 26| 294| .911 15| Delehanty |Philadelphia| 17| 28| 3| 3| 34| .911 16| Duffy |Chicago | 67| 103| 19| 12| 134| .910 17| Dalrymple |Pittsburgh | 57| 80| 9| 9| 98| .908 18| Wood |Philadelphia|103| 175| 15| 20| 210| .904 19| Andrews |Philadelphia|123| 210| 23| 25| 258| .903 20| Johnston |Boston |135| 286| 30| 36| 352| .897 20| Hoy |Washington |136| 296| 26| 37| 359| .897 21| Brown |Boston |107| 172| 18| 22| 212| .896 22| Shock |Washington | 35| 59| 7| 8| 74| .892 23| Fields |Pittsburgh | 29| 49| 6| 7| 62| .887 24| Twitchell |Detroit |129| 195| 13| 27| 235| .885 25| Farrell |Chicago | 31| 50| 3| 7| 60| .883 26| Thompson | Detroit | 55| 86| 4| 12| 102| .882 27| Ryan |Chicago |125| 217| 84| 35| 286| .877 28| Van Haltren|Chicago | 54| 73| 9| 12| 94| .872 28| Wilmot |Washington |119| 260| 19| 41| 320| .872 29| Foster |New York | 37| 64| 5| 12| 81| .851 30| Scheffler |Detroit | 27| 49| 1| 9| 59| .847 31| Gore |New York | 64| 88| 4| 18| 110| .836 32| Carroll |Pittsburg | 38| 45| 2| 10| 57| .824 33| Kelly |Boston | 31| 28| 4| 12| 44| .727

CATCHERS’ AVERAGES.

| | | | | T | F| | | P
| | | | N | i | i| | | e | | | | u | m | e| | T | r
| | | G| m | e | l| P| o | c | | | a| b | s | d| a| t | e
| | | m| e | | i| s| a | n | | | e| r | A | n| s| l | t
| | | s| | s | g| e| | a A | | | | P | s | | d| C | g c
| | | P| u | i | E| | h | e c | | | l| t | s | r| B| a | e
R | | | a| | t | r| A| n | p a | | | y| O | i | o| L| c | t n | | | e| u | n | r| L| e | e k | | | d| t | g | s| S| s | d . |NAME. |CLUB. | .| . | . | .| .| . | . –+———-+————+–+—+—+–+–+—+—– 1| Bennett |Detroit |72|424| 94|18|14|550| .941 2| Ganzell |Detroit |25|156| 41| 9|15|221| .891 3| Daily |Chicago |69|400|107|33|36|576| .880 4| Clements |Philadelphia|84|494|104|47|39|684| .874 5| Ewing |New York |78|480|143|35|65|723| .861 6| Wells |Detroit |16| 96| 25|11| 9|141| .858 7| Myers |Indianapolis|46|211| 63|21|27|322| .851 8| Flint |Chicago |22| 96| 42|11|14|163| .846 9| Mack |Washington |79|361|152|47|48|608| .843 10|{Deasley |Washington |31|177| 60|20|25|282| .840 |{Murphy |New York |28|186| 56|23|23|288| .840 11| Darling |Chicago |20|139| 26|12|21|198| .833 12| Buckley |Indianapolis|48|213| 60|31|28|332| .822 13| Miller |Pittsburg |68|268| 76|35|48|427| .805 14| O’Rourke |Boston |20| 89| 37|17|14|157| .803 15| Tate |Boston |40|188| 64|43|19|314| .802 16| Kelly |Boston |74|367|146|77|54|644| .796 17| Carroll |Pittsburg |53|265| 58|37|46|406| .795 18| Daily |Indianapolis|42|215| 69|34|41|359| .791 19| Brown |New York |17|134| 24|19|26|203| .778 20| Farrell |Chicago |31|171| 50|32|34|287| .770 21| Schriver |Philadelphia|27|148| 39|28|29|244| .760 22| Arundel |Washington |16| 63| 16|15|21|115| .687

PITCHERS’ RECORD IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER

[**Proofreaders note: To fit the page I broke this chart into 2 tables*]

| | |T |R | |R | |F M| | | |I |u | |u | |i a| | | |m |n | |n | |r d| | | |e |s | |s | |s e| | | |s | | | | |t |
| | G| o |S b| |E b| | b| | | a|a f |C y| |a y| |B y| | | m|t |o | |r | |a | P | | e| O |r O| |n O| |s O| e | | s|B p |e p| |e p| |e p| r | | |a p |d p| |d p| | p| c | | P|t o | o| | o| |H o| e | | l| n | n| | n| |i n| n | | a| e | e| | e| |t e| t | | y| n | n| | n| |s n| a | | e| t | t|Ave. | t|Ave. | t| g | | d| s | s|per | s|per | s| e NAME. |CLUB. | .| . | |Game.| .|Game.| .| . ———–+————-+–+—–+—-+—–+—-+—–+—-+—- Buffinton |Philadelphia |44|1492 | 134|3.04 | 72| 1.63| 321|.215 Baldwin |Chicago |28| 960 | 125|4.46 | 65| 2.32| 233|.242 Burdick |Indianapolis |20| 700 | 88|4.40 | 52| 2.60| 167|.238 Boyle | ” ” |37|1294 | 181|4.89 | 90| 2.43| 317|.245 Conway |Detroit |44|1508 | 168|3.82 | 84| 1.81| 315|.208 Clarkson |Boston |53|1885 | 239|4.51 | 120| 2.26| 436|.231 Casey |Philadelphia |32|1141 | 153|4.78 | 86| 2.69| 296|.259 Getzein |Detroit |45|1626 | 224|4.98 | 137| 3.04| 402|.247 Gleason |Philadelphia |23| 791 | 106|4.61 | 57| 2.48| 200|.252 Galvin |Pittsburg |50|1760 | 193|3.86 | 123| 2.46| 437|.248 Gruber |Detroit |27| 934 | 124|4.59 | 57| 2.11| 199|.213 Healy |Indianapolis |37|1326 | 204|5.51 | 128| 3.46| 357|.269 Krock |Chicago |39|1294 | 143|3.66 | 74| 1.89| 293|.226 Keefe |New York |50|1643 | 149|2.99 | 75| 1.50| 329|.200 Madden |Boston |19| 648 | 84|4.42 | 53| 2.79| 154|.237 Morris |Pittsburg |54|1911 | 213|3 94 | 114| 2.11| 459|.240 O’Day |Washington |46|1545 | 215|4.67 | 108| 2.34| 374|.242 Radbourne |Boston |24| 791 | 110|4.58 | 67| 2.79| 192|.242 Shreve |Indianapolis |35|1235 | 210|6.00 | 134| 3.82| 356|.2*8 Sowders |Boston |35|1219 | 155|4.43 | 69| 1.97| 283|.232 Staley |Pittsburg |24| 774 | 103|4.29 | 58| 2.41| 186|.240 Sanders |Philadelphia |31|1097 | 113|3.64 | 57| 1.84| 247|.225 Titcomb |New York |23| 756 | 97|4.21 | 41| 1.78| 159|.210 Van Haltren|Chicago |27| 967 | 160|5.92 | 81| 3 00| 264|.273 Welch |New York |47|1592 | 156|3.32 | 80| 1.70| 330|.207 Whitney |Washington |39|1309 | 181|4.64 | 94| 2.41| 317|.242

| | | T | F| |B | |P
| | N| i | i| |a | |e | | u| m | e| |s o | T |r
| | m| e | l| W|e p c| o |c | | b| s | d| i|s p a| t |e
| | e| | i| l| o l| a |n | | r| A | n| d|g n l| l |t
| | | s | g| |i e e| |a A | | P| s | | P|v n d| C |g c
| | u| i | E| i|e t | h |e c | | t| s | r| t|n s b| a | e | | | t | r| c| a| n | p
| | O| i | o| h| o l| c | t | | u| n | r| e| n l| e | e | | t| g | s| s| s| s | d
NAME |CLUB | .| . | .| .| .| . | . ———–+————+–+—+–+–+——-+—+—– Buffinton |Philadelphia|31|322|10|12| 62 |437| .808 Baldwin |Chicago |11|208| 5|18| 99 |341| .642 Burdick |Indianapolis|14| 87| 5|14| 44 |164| .616 Boyle | ” ” |14|180| 7|20| 59 |280| .692 Conway |Detroit |10|267| 7|12| 57 |353| .784 Clarkson |Boston |24|351|22|37| 119 |553| .678 Casey |Philadelphia|15|176| 9|15| 48 |263| .726 Getzein |Detroit |29|276|16|24| 52 |397| .768 Gleason |Philadelphia| 6|128|13|14| 53 |214| .626 Galvin |Pittsburg |23|224|10|11| 58 |326| .758 Gruber |Detroit | 4|121| 8|14| 42 |189| .661 Healy |Indianapolis| 5|206|15|22| 81 |329| .641 Krock |Chicago | 4|217|12|18| 45 |296| .746 Keefe |New York |29|410|17|24| 86 |566| .775 Madden |Boston | 4| 95| 4| 8| 28 |139| .712 Morris |Pittsburg |20|240| 8|17| 70 |355| .732 O’Day |Washington |19|252| 7|23| 123 |424| .639 Radbourne |Boston |14|104| 6| 9| 44 |177| .666 Shreve |Indianapolis| 7|173|16|31| 94 |321| .560 Sowders |Boston |23|192| 8|16| 71 |310| .693 Staley |Pittsburg | 8|127| 5| 8| 52 |200| .675 Sanders |Philadelphia|17|194| 7|10| 34 |262| .805 Titcomb |New York | 1|157| 8| 9| 48 |223| .708 Van Haltren|Chicago |25|181| 5|24| 53 |288| .715 Welch |New York |16|248|17|20| 113 |414| .637 Whitney |Washington |24|145|11|10| 60 |250| .676

BATTING AND FIELDING RECORD

Of Clubs, Members of the National League of Professional B. B. Clubs.

* * * * *

SEASON OF 1888.

[**Proofreaders note: Table split into three parts to fit on page]

R | | | ||BATTING
a | | | ||Times| |Ave.| |Ave. n | |Games |Games||at |Runs |per |Runs |per k |CLUB |Played|Won ||Bat |Scored|Game|Earned|Game –+————+——+—–++—–+——+—-+——+—– 1|New York | 137 | 84 || 4751| 659 |4.81| 334 | 2.44 2|Chicago | 135 | 77 || 4616| 734 |5.43| 441 | 3.26 | | | [1]|| | | | |
3|Philadelphia| 130 | 69 || 4496| 535 |4.11| 272 | 2.09 4|Boston | 137 | 70 || 4835| 669 |4.88| 355 | 2.59 5|Detroit | 134 | 68 || 4859| 721 |5.38| 423 | 3.15 6|Indianapolis| 137 | 66 || 4678| 531 |3.87| 308 | 2.27 | | | [2]|| | | | |
7|Pittsburg | 136 | 50 || 4626| 600 |4.41| 269 | 1.97 8|Washington | 136 | 48 || 4548| 482 |3.54| 225 | 1.65

[Footnote 1: 1 game forfeited to Philadelphia] [Footnote 2: 1 game forfeited to New York]

|BATTING
|First| | |Ave. | |Ave. |Base |Per- |Total| per |Bases |per CLUB |Hits |centage|Bases| Game |Stolen|Game ————+—–+——-+—–+——+——+—— New York |1150 | .242 |1581 |11.54 | 314 | 2.29 Chicago |1202 | .260 |1753 |12.98 | 292 | 2.16 Philadelphia|1017 | .226 |1298 | 9.98 | 246 | 1.89 Boston |1180 | .244 |1673 |12.21 | 292 | 2.13 Detroit |1268 | .261 |1724 |12.86 | 192 | 1.43 Indianapolis|1061 | .226 |1359 | 9.92 | 287 | 2.09 Pittsburg |1112 | .240 |1443 |10.61 | 351 | 2.58 Washington | 944 | .207 |1233 | 9.06 | 336 | 2.47

|FIELDING
| | T | F | | | |P | | i | i | | | |e
| | m | e | | | |r | | e A | l | | | |c A | | s s | d | | | |e c | | s | i | | | |n c | | i | n E| | | |t e | | s | g r|Passed |Bases | |a p | | t | r|Balls |given | |g t |Number| i | o|and |Opponents| |e e | Put | n | r|Wild |on Called|Total | d CLUB | Out | g | s|Pitches|Balls |Chances| ————+——+——+—–+——-+———+——-+—– New York | 3633 | 2349 | 432 | 205 | 302 | 6921 |.864 Chicago | 3549 | 2305 | 409 | 200 | 289 | 6752 |.867 Philadelphia| 3469 | 2189 | 429 | 144 | 200 | 6431 |.879 Boston | 3652 | 2288 | 520 | 162 | 270 | 6892 |.861 Detroit | 3579 | 2172 | 474 | 128 | 181 | 6534 |.880 Indianapolis| 3581 | 2048 | 408 | 159 | 225 | 6421 |.876 Pittsburg | 3545 | 2097 | 453 | 189 | 296 | 6580 |.857 Washington | 3497 | 2062 | 522 | 173 | 313 | 6567 |.846

TIE GAMES.–New York 7, Chicago 1, Philadelphia 1, Boston 3, Detroit 3, Pittsbnrg 4, Indianapolis 1, Washington 2.

THE VETERANS OF THE LEAGUE.

Those of the players who have taken part in League contests for not less than ten years are entitled to the honor of belonging to the ranks of the veterans of the League, and they include the following representative players, the majority of whom are now in League Clubs:

|Number |Number | | |
|of |of | |First |
|Seasons|Games |Times | Base | Perc- Name. |played.|played.|at bat.| hits.| entage —————–+——-+——-+——-+——+——- Adrian C. Anson | 13 | 1173 | 4904 | 1751 | .357 James O’Rourke | 13 | 1133 | 4832 | 1519 | .314 James L. White | 13 | 1101 | 4610 | 1439 | .312 Paul Hines | 13 | 1184 | 5112 | 1591 | .311 E. B. Sutton | 13 | 1007 | 4196 | 1216 | .289 John F. Morrill | 13 | 1194 | 4685 | 1253 | .267 John J. Burdock | 13 | 871 | 3584 | 911 | .254 M. J. Kelly | 11 | 1080 | 4370 | 1421 | .325 A. Dalrymple | 11 | 909 | 4041 | 1198 | .296 Joseph Start | 11 | 776 | 3366 | 995 | .295 E. N. Williamson | 11 | 1071 | 4163 | 1133 | .274 Geo. F. Gore | 10 | 886 | 3689 | 1157 | .313 Hardy Richardson | 10 | 910 | 3974 | 1230 | .309 John W. Glasscock| 10 | 952 | 3847 | 1089 | .283 Chas. W. Bennett | 10 | 709 | 2720 | 761 | .279 Joseph Hornung | 10 | 858 | 3706 | 988 | .266 F. S. Flint | 10 | 708 | 2759 | 669 | .242 Jas. McCormick | 10 | 499 | 1957 | 464 | .237 D. W. Force | 10 | 746 | 2873 | 598 | .208

Of these Sutton, Dalrymple, Burdock, and Force are in the service of minor League Clubs, while the retired players include Start and McCormick.

Those who have played for less than ten years and not less than seven include the following second class of veterans, the first class being limited to players who have a credit of a decade of service:

|Number |Number | | |
|of |of | |First |
|Seasons|Games |Times | Base | Perc- Name. |played.|played.|at bat.| hits.| entage —————–+——-+——-+——-+——+——- Dennis Brouthers | 9 | 845 | 3578 | 1267 | .354 Rodger Connor | 9 | 943 | 3870 | 1309 | .338 J. C. Howe | 9 | 827 | 3548 | 1067 | .300 Geo. A. Wood | 9 | 854 | 3677 | 1024 | .278 M. C. Dorgan | 9 | 660 | 2719 | 756 | .277 Thomas Burns | 9 | 900 | 3597 | 990 | .275 Edwin Hanlon | 9 | 893 | 3629 | 972 | .267 Jno. M. Ward | 9 | 1046 | 4403 | 1169 | .265 A. A. Irwin | 9 | 796 | 3136 | 796 | .254 Jno. Farrell | 9 | 729 | 3048 | 776 | .254 M. Welch | 9 | 491 | 1817 | 433 | .238 B. Gilligan | 9 | 510 | 1848 | 380 | .209 Jos. F. Galvin | 9 | 524 | 2000 | 418 | .208 Wm. Ewing | 8 | 640 | 2708 | 812 | .299 Fred Dunlap | 8 | 707 | 2972 | 867 | .292 P. Gillespie | 8 | 703 | 2907 | 817 | .278 Thomas York | 8 | 566 | 2291 | 617 | .269 Robert Ferguson | 8 | 538 | 2209 | 596 | .269 Jas. E. Whitney | 8 | 525 | 2085 | 555 | .266 Jeremiah Denny | 8 | 824 | 3308 | 881 | .266 Chas. Radbourn | 8 | 530 | 2092 | 517 | .247 George Shaffer | 7 | 521 | 2137 | 602 | .281 Sam W. Wise | 7 | 698 | 2826 | 785 | .277 Jno. E. Clapp | 7 | 398 | 1688 | 465 | .275 W. A. Purcell | 7 | 500 | 2136 | 559 | .261 J P. Cassidy | 7 | 416 | 1718 | 433 | .252 J. J. Gerhardt | 7 | 565 | 2182 | 489 | .224 Geo. E. Weidman | 7 | 338 | 1273 | 22* | .1*4 | | | | [A] | [A]
[**Proofreaders note A: * Indecipherable number**]

Of the above Gillespie, Dorgan, Clapp, York, Ferguson and Cassidy have retired from field service.

One of the most interesting records of the games played in the professional arena during the past eighteen years of the existence, first of the old National Association from 1871 to 1875 inclusive, and then of the National League from 1876 to 1888 inclusive, is that of the contests each year between the rival Boston and Chicago clubs, the former winning the pennant in 1872, ’73, ’74, ’75, ’77 and ’78, and also in 1883; while Chicago won it in 1876 and in 1880, ’81, ’82, ’85 and ’86. As a matter for interesting reference, we give below the full record of victories and defeats scored by the two clubs from 1871 to 1888 inclusive. The Chicago Club did not play in 1872 and 1873, having been burned out in the great fire of ’71.

|1871 |1872 |1873 |1874 |1875 |1876 |1877 |1878 |1879 ——-+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—– |W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L. ——-+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+– Boston |22|10|39| 8|43|16|52|18|71| 8|39|31|31|17|41|19|49|20 Chicago|20| 9| -| -| -| -|27|31|30|37|52|14|18|30|30|30|44|32

|1880|1881|1882|1883|1884|1885|1886|1887|1888 ——-+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—– |W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L. ——-+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+– Boston |40|44|38|45|45|39|63|35|73|38|46|66|56|61|61|60|70|64 Chicago|67|17|56|28|55|29|59|39|62|50|87|25|90|31|71|50|77|58

THE LEAGUE’S PRESIDENT.

The close of the League campaign of 1888 saw the President of the League, Mr. N. E. Young, enter upon a new era in the history of his official duties, first as Secretary, then as President-Secretary, two positions he has so faithfully and efficiently filled since the organization of the League. Mr. Young was prominent in organizing the first professional National Association; and but for him Mr. Chadwick would not have been able to have carried out his project of dividing the baseball fraternity into the two officially recognized classes which he did when he started the first professional Association in 1871. From that year to 1875 inclusive, Mr. Young acted as Secretary of the old National Association, and when it was superseded by the National League in 1876 he was elected Secretary of the new organization, Mr. Bulkely, the present Governor of Connecticut, being the League’s first President. Mr. Young was also Secretary under the Presidency of Mr. A. G. Mills, and when that gentleman resigned, the worthy Secretary was elected to the joint offices of President, Secretary and Treasurer of the League, and this position he has most capably filled ever since.

A Washington journalist has this well-merited compliment to say of the veteran:

“The rugged honesty of the League president is a matter with which those interested in base ball have long been familiar. His residence is in Washington, and he was for years a player and umpire, having all the ups and downs usual to their lot, but he is now in very comfortable circumstances. The duties of his office require a cool-headed man, able to do justice to all without fear or favor. It is singularly trying at times, but though the intense rivalry of the different clubs sometimes causes the managers to lose their heads and charge unfairness against the umpires, not a word has ever been said that would in any way compromise Nick Young. It is an honor and credit to the baseball magnates that they have such a man at the head of the League.”

THE JOINT RULES COMMITTEE AND THEIR WORK.

[Illustration: N.E. Young.]

The work accomplished by the Joint Rules Committee of the National League and the American Association at their meeting in New York in November, 1888, ranks with the best on record in the revision of the playing rules of the game, and the successful results achieved in improving the code was largely due to the marked efficiency evinced by the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Chas. H. Byrne, the president of the Brooklyn club, who was indefatigable in doing the large amount of revisory work which was thrown upon the committee. In the face of a very noisy and sensational demand for radical changes in the rules governing the game, the committee, as a whole, manifested a wise conservatism in several respects, which cannot help but be of material assistance in advancing the welfare of the game at large. In the first place, by reducing the powers of the attack nearer to an equality with those of the defence–which result was accomplished when they reduced the number of called balls from five to four–they not only adopted a rule which will moderate the dangerous speed in delivering the ball to the bat, but they thereby afforded the batsman an additional chance for more effective work at the bat. This latter point, too, has been aided by reducing the number of outs the batsman has hitherto been unfairly subjected to. The rule which puts batsmen out on catches of foul balls, which, since the game originated, has been an unfair rule of play, has seen its best day; and this year the entering wedge to its ultimate disappearance has been driven in, with the practical result of the repeal of the foul tip catch. This improvement, too, is in the line of aiding the batting side, as it gets rid of one of the numerous ways of putting the batsman out.

The argument brought to bear in favor of the elimination of outs from foul balls from the code was in the main as follows:

When the batsman hits a fair ball, while at the same time that he gives the fielders a chance to put him out, he himself is also given an equal chance of making a base or of scoring a run; but when he hits a foul ball, while he affords the fielders an opportunity to catch him out, no such compensating advantage is given him in the way of earning a base or a run as in the case of a fair hit ball; and it is in this that the working of the foul ball rule becomes so palpably unjust. It is sufficient punishment for hitting a foul ball that he, as batsman, be deprived of making a base, without adding the unjust penalty of an out. This one sided condition of things, too, is increased when a double play is made on the catch of a foul ball, for not only is the batsman unfairly punished, but also the base runner who may have made the base by a clean hit.

It is this latter unfair rule which the committee repealed in getting rid of the foul fly tip; and now a batsman who has earned his base by a safe hit and who runs to the next base on a foul fly tip ball caught by the catcher, can no longer be put out on the double play, as he is now allowed to return to the base he left on the hit, as in the case of a foul ball not caught.

Another step in advance was made by the committee when they officially recognized a sacrifice hit as a factor in team work at the bat. Hitherto far too great stress has been laid upon the alleged skill of the batsman in making extra hits–two and three baggers and home runs–at the cost of giving due credit to the batting which forwards base runners and sends in runs. The work of the slugging batsman who, nearly every time he goes to the bat when no one is on the bases, makes an extra hit, does not compare with that of the team worker who either by a single base hit or a sacrifice hit forwards a runner round the bases, or sends a run in. Here is where the batting averages prove to be complete failures so far as affording a criterion of a batsman’s value in team work is concerned; which work, by the way, is neither more nor less than that of forwarding base runners or sending runs in by batting–for one batsman may make four extra base hits in a game without forwarding a runner or sending in a run in a single instance, while another batsman may make but one safe hit and three sacrifice hits, and yet either forward as many runners or send in as many runs.

Probably the best piece of work done by the committee was the amendment they made to the rules governing the umpire, wherein, in defining the powers of an umpire to impose a fine of not less than $5 nor more than $25 for abusive, threatening or improper language to the umpire, an amendment was made as follows:

“A repetition of the offence shall subject such player to a removal from the game, and the immediate substitution of another player then in uniform.”

Lastly, the rule admitting of an extra substitute being allowed to play in the game, at the option of the captain of either of the contesting teams, though an experiment, gives promise of being a desirable amendment. The classifying of the code of rules so as to facilitate the finding of any special rule during the hurry of a contest in progress, was also a desirable improvement. Take it altogether, the present committee did excellent work at their Fall meeting of 1888.

OVERRUNNING THE BASES.

Twenty odd years ago George Wright suggested to the Chairman of the old National Association’s Committee of Rules that it would be a good plan to allow base runners to overrun first base, giving them the privilege to return and touch the base again without being put out, before attempting to make another base. The suggestion was adopted, and the rule went into effect in 1870, and it has been in operation ever since. When the amendment was presented at the convention of 1869, a delegate wanted the rule applied to all bases, but the majority preferred to test the experiment as proposed at first base. The rule of extending the over-running to all the bases was advocated at the last meeting in 1888 of the Joint Committee of Rules, but it was not adopted. The rule is worthy of consideration, in view of the constant sprains and injuries of one kind and another arising from sliding to bases. There has not been a single instance of an injury occurring from the working of the rule of overrunning first base since the rule was adopted, while serious injuries are of daily occurrence in match games, arising from collisions at other bases than first, and these are due entirely to the absence of the overrunning rule. The most irritating disputes caused by questions involved in sliding to bases and in running up against base players, are also due to the same cause. Why not put a stop to these injuries and these disputes by giving the base runner the same privileges in overrunning second, third and home bases that he now has in overrunning first base? In every way will the adoption of the rule suggested be an improvement, and not the least of its advantages will be its gain to base running, which is, next to fielding, the most attractive feature of our game.

THE PATRONS OF BALL GROUNDS.

There are two classes of the patrons of professional baseball grounds which club Presidents and Directors have their choice in catering to for each season, and these are, first, the reputable class, who prefer to see the game played scientifically and by gentlemanly exemplars of the beauties of the game; and second, the hoodlum element, who revel in noisy coaching, “dirty ball playing,” kicking against the umpires, and exciting disputes and rows in every inning. The Chicago, Philadelphia and Boston Clubs in the League have laid out nearly $200,000 within the past two years in constructing their grounds for the express purpose of eliciting the very best patronage of their respective cities. The Brooklyn Club have excelled in this respect in the American Association by constructing their grounds for a similar class of patrons. But all of the clubs have not followed this example, the majority committing the blunder of considering only the tastes and requirements of the hoodlum class apparently in catering for patronage. This is a great financial mistake. Experience has shown conclusively that it pays best to cater solely for the best class of patronage. The work in doing this is so much more satisfactory for one thing, and it is sure to be the most remunerative. If there is any sport which yields a fair equivalent in the special attractions it presents for an admission fee of half a dollar, it is such ball playing as was exhibited during the past season on the grounds of the leading clubs of the National League. A feature of the attendance at the League games of 1888 was the presence of the fair sex in such goodly numbers. Where the ladies congregate as spectators of sports a refining influence is brought to bear which is valuable to the welfare of the game. Besides which, the patronage of ladies improves the character of the assemblages and helps to preserve the order without which first-class patronage cannot be obtained.

THE VALUE OF TEAM WORK.

Nothing has been more gratifying to the admirers of the game in the practical experience of improved points of play realized during the season of 1888, than the growing appreciation, by the most intelligent patrons of the game, of the value of team work at the bat, and its great superiority as an element of success in winning pennants, to the old school plan of record batting as shown in the efforts to excel solely in home run hitting and the slugging style of batting.

So intent have been the general class of batsmen on making big batting averages that the science of batting and the advantages to be derived from “playing for the side of the bat” have been entirely lost sight of until within the past year. Now, however, the best judges of play in the game have begun to “tumble to” the benefits and to the attractions of team work at the bat, as illustrated by skillful sacrifice hits, batting to help base-runners around and to bring runs in, and not that of going to the bat with the sole idea of trying to “hit the ball out of the lot,” or “knock the stuffing out of it,” in the effort to get in the coveted home run. with its costly expenditure of physical strength in the 120 yards spurt in running which it involves.

There is one thing the season’s experience has shown, and that is that field captains of intelligence and judgment, like Anson, Comiskey, Ward, Irwin, et al. have come to realize the fact that team batting is a very important element in bringing about pennant winning, and by team batting is meant the rule which makes everything secondary in the work of the batsman to the important point to forward men around the bases and to bring runs in. The batsman who excels in the essentials of the art of batting is the true leader, though he may not make a three-bagger or a home run more than half a dozen times in a season’s batting. And a part of team work at the bat is sacrifice hitting–sacrifice hits being hits which, while they result in the striker’s retirement, nevertheless either forward runners to the bases or bring runs in. After a batsman has become a base-runner, whether by a hit, a fielding error, or a battery error, if he be forwarded to second by a safe bunt or a neat tap of the ball, both being base hits; or by a sacrifice hit, the batsman is equally entitled to credit if he forward a runner by such hit.

In regard to the slugging tactics which the batsman goes in for extra hits at all costs, it may partly be regarded as a very stupid piece of play at the bat to endeavor to make a home run when there is no one on the bases to benefit by it, and for the reason that it subjects the batsman to a violent sprinting of 120 yards, and professional sprint-runners who enter for runs of that distance, even when in training for the effort, require a half-hour’s good rest before making another such effort. And yet there are batsmen who strive to make hits which necessitate a 120 yards run two or three times in a single game. Do field captains who go in for this sluggish style of batting ever think of the wear and tear of a player’s physical strength in this slugging business?

EVILS IN THE PROFESSIONAL ARENA.

The two great obstacles in the way of the success of the majority of professional ball players are wine and women. The saloon and the brothel are the evils of the baseball world at the present day; and we see it practically exemplified in the failure of noted players to play up to the standard they are capable of were they to avoid these gross evils. One day it is a noted pitcher who fails to serve his club at a critical period of the campaign. Anon, it is the disgraceful escapade of an equally noted umpire. And so it goes from one season to another, at the cost of the loss of thousands of dollars to clubs who blindly shut their eyes to the costly nature of intemperance and dissipation in their ranks. We tell you, gentlemen of the League and Association, the sooner you introduce the prohibition plank in your contracts the sooner you will get rid of the costly evil of drunkenness and dissipation among your players. Club after club have lost championship honors time and again by this evil, and yet they blindly condone these offences season after season. The prohibition rule from April to October is the only practical rule for removing drunkenness in your teams.

PRIVATE SIGNALS IN COACHING.

The coaching of base runners by private signals is an improvement in the game which is bound to come into vogue eventually. The noisy method of coaching which disgraced most of the American Association club teams in 1888 is doomed to die out. In the case of the coaching of deaf mutes, like Hoy and others, private signals had to be employed, and it can readily be seen how effective these can be made to be when properly systematized. There is not a single point in noisy verbal coaching which aids base-runners. In fact, in five cases out of six, it is a detriment to the runner. The fact is, the whole object of rowdy coaching is to annoy and confuse the battery players and not to help base-running. The way to rattle both the catcher and pitcher with the best effect, and to do it legitimately, is by private coaching. In this way a pitcher is more likely to get bothered in his endeavors to interpret the private signals than by the noisiest of verbal coaching.

[Illustration: Brooklyn Grounds.]

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION.

THE CHAMPIONSHIP CAMPAIGN OF 1888.

The championship campaign of the American Association in 1888 proved to be exceptionally interesting in one respect, and that was in the close contest for the lead between the St. Louis, Brooklyn, Athletic and Cincinnati Clubs. Another feature was the fact that the best managed and most ably captained team of the eight clubs deservedly bore off the championship honors of the season; and that, too, against the strong team of picked star players which the Brooklyn Club gathered together at such cost to oppose the champions. The season was also made specially noteworthy by the fact that the St. Louis Club came in victors in the race for the fourth consecutive season, a record no other club except the Boston has ever been able to equal, and in the case of the Boston Club it was done before the organization of the National League. The pennant race was commenced on April 18, on which date the Louisville team began play at St. Louis, and the Cincinnatis at Kansas City in the West; while the Cleveland team opened at Brooklyn, and the Baltimore at Philadelphia in the East, the victors being the St. Louis, Cincinnati, Brooklyn, and Baltimore teams. By the end of April the Cincinnati and Athletic teams led in the West and East, with St. Louis and Brooklyn occupying fourth and fifth positions respectively, in the race. Before the end of May, while Cincinnati stood in the van, St. Louis had pulled up to second place, and Brooklyn had secured third position, the Athletics being fourth. In June Cincinnati fell off and St. Louis went to the front, with Brooklyn a close second, and the Athletics third. In July, Cincinnati rallied well and pushed the Athletics down to fourth place, while St. Louis and Brooklyn still occupied the leading positions. It was during the week ending July 15 that Brooklyn held first place with a percentage of .676 to St. Louis .639; before the month ended, however, St. Louis pulled up to .662, while Brooklyn stood at .641.

August proved to be a fatal month for Brooklyn, they only winning 8 games out of 22 won and lost this month, the result of their tumble being their retirement to fourth place, Cincinnati rallying well this month, while St. Louis began to look sure for the pennant, the Athletics ending the month a good third in the race. In September the Athletics pressed the Cincinnatis hard, and drove them out of second place, and before the month ended it was made evident that the closing part of the campaign would see a hot fight for the second position in the race between the Athletic and Brooklyn teams, September seeing the St. Louis team a fixture for first place, while Cincinnati was kept back in fourth position. By the close of September, St. Louis held first with a percentage of .691; the Athletics were second, with .615; Brooklyn third with .606, and Cincinnati fourth with .574. October saw a close struggle between the Athletic and Brooklyn teams for second place, and had the former team been kept temperate they would have finished second; but they “boozed” too much in October, and this gave Brooklyn the chance to take the position from them, and when the campaign ended on the 17th of October the record left the eight clubs occupying the following relative positions:

| Won. | Lost. | Per Ct.
———-+——+——-+——-
St. Louis | 92 | 43 | .681
Brooklyn | 88 | 52 | .629
Athletic | 81 | 52 | .609
Cincinnati| 80 | 54 | .597
Baltimore | 57 | 80 | .416
Cleveland | 50 | 82 | .378
Louisville| 48 | 87 | .355
Kans. City| 43 | 89 | .326

In the above record the Athletic Club is credited with one victory and Baltimore with one defeat less than they were given credit for in the records published at the close of the season. The game was taken out of the record by the following order of President Wikoff:

NEW YORK, October 16. W.S. KAMES, Esq, Secretary Athletic Base Ball Club, Philadelphia:

_Dear Sir:_–I find on examination that the Baltimore Athletic game of June 10, 1888, played at Gloucester, N.J., and won by your club, and which
has been counted in the regular championship series as a postponed game of
April 21, was irregular, for the reason that the said postponed game of April 21 was played off by your club in Philadelphia as per authority of my official circular No. 36, on May 16, 1888. Therefore, the game won by the Athletic Club on June 10 cannot be counted in the regular championship
series. Yours truly,
WHEELER C. WIKOFF, Secy.

It will be seen that the St. Louis Club won the championship, and for the fourth consecutive time, thus breaking the record. The Brooklyns, by a liberal expenditure of money toward the close of the season, succeeded in strengthening sufficiently to head off the Athletics for second place, and the latter had to be content with third position. The Cincinnatis did good work toward the close, despite the sale of several valuable players, and almost succeeded in closing the gap between fourth and third places; as it was, they ended a close fourth. Baltimore secured fifth place by a goodly margin over the sixth club, Cleveland. Louisville finished seventh, the lowest position the club ever occupied. Kansas City, though the tail-ender, nevertheless made an excellent first-season record. Neither the St. Louis nor Brooklyn Clubs lost a series. They split even with ten victories each in their games, and Brooklyn stood alone in winning the series from every other club. The Brooklyn Club alone played its full schedule of 140 games.

The following is a full and complete summary of the work done by the eight clubs in the championship arena during 1888:

| | | | | | | | K
| | | | C | | | L | a | S | | | I | B | C | o | n | t | B | A | n | a | l | u | s | . | r | t | c | l | e | i | a | | o | h | i | t | v | s | s | L | o | l | n | i | e | v | | o | k | e | n | m | l | i | C | u | l | t | a | o | a | l | i | i | y | i | t | r | n | l | t | s | n | c | i | e | d | e | y | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . ———————–+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—- Victories | 92| 88| 81| 80| 57| 50| 48| 43 Defeats | 43| 52| 52| 54| 80| 82| 87| 89 Drawn Games | 2| 3| 3| 3| 0| 3| 4| 0 Total Played | 137| 143| 136| 137| 137| 135| 139| 132 Per Cent. of Victories |.681|.629|.609|.597|.416|.378|.355|.326 Series Won | 4| 6| 4| 3| 2| 0| 1| 0 Series Lost | 0| 0| 1| 1| 4| 3| 5| 6 Series Tied | 1| 1| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0 Series Unfinished | 2| 0| 1| 2| 1| 4| 1| 1 “Chicago” Victories | 12| 9| 13| 9| 3| 5| 6| 4 “Chicago” Defeats | 4| 9| 5| 7| 8| 12| 6| 10 Home Victories | 60| 52| 51| 56| 30| 32| 26| 25 Home Defeats | 21| 20| 20| 24| 26| 27| 29| 33 Victories Abroad | 29| 36| 30| 24| 27| 18| 22| 18 Defeats Abroad | 22| 32| 32| 50| 31| 23| 58| 56 Extra Innings Victories| 3| 7| 5| 8| 3| 1| 2| 1 Extra Innings Defeats | 6| 3| 7| 4| 3| 1| 5| 2 Extra Innings Drawn | 2| 2| 2| 2| 0| 1| 1| 0 Single Figure Victories| 73| 74| 57| 56| 48| 37| 37| 32 Single Figure Defeats | 38| 46| 46| 44| 59| 58| 62| 65 Double Figure Victories| 19| 14| 24| 24| 9| 13| 11| 11 Double Figure Defeats | 5| 6| 6| 10| 21| 24| 25| 24 Batting Average |.250|.243|.263|.240|.231|.235|.248|.221 Fielding Average |.930|.924|.934|.940|.928|.941|.913|.921 Highest Score in a Game| 18| 18| 28| 18| 12| 23| 18| 26 Worst Defeat | 5-0| 7-0| 8-0|12-0|14-0|15-0| 9-0|14-0 Won by One Run | 15| 20| 11| 19| 16| 14| 11| 16 Lost by One Run | 18| 15| 15| 14| 10| 19| 10| 15 Total Runs Scored | 790| 757| 828| 734| 653| 641|.678| 578 Total Stolen Bases | 526| 413| 568| 464| 374| 399| 368| 266

THE CHAMPION CLUB TEAM OF 1888.

There were fourteen players of the St. Louis team who took part in forty games and over, the first nine being as follows:

King, pitcher, 65 games; Boyle, catcher, 71 games; Comiskey, first baseman, 137 games; Robinson, second baseman, 134 games; Latham, third baseman, 133 games; White, shortstop, 109 games; O’Neill, left field, 130 games; Lyons, center field, 123 games; and McCarthy, right field, 131 games. The other battery players were Hudson, pitcher, 55 games; Milligan, catcher, 63 games; Chamberlain, pitcher, 40 games; Herr, shortstop, 43 games, and McGarr, second base, 35 games. The other players are not named in the official averages. The first nine who played in one hundred games and over, and who led in batting averages, were O’Neill, McCarthy, Comiskey, Latham, Robinson, White, and Lyons; Hudson, Milligan, Boyle, King and Chamberlain, all of whom played in less than one hundred games, following in order.

In fielding averages, Comiskey, Milligan, O’Neill, Boyle, McCarthy, Lyons, Robinson and Latham.

The feature of the work of the team in winning the pennant was the ability shown by Captain Comiskey in his position; the fine infield work, too, of Latham and Robinson, and the outfielding of O’Neill and McCarthy greatly aiding the batteries of the team. The full summary of the team’s work is given below:

| | | | | | | K ||
| | | C | | | L | a || | | | i | B | C | o | n || | B | A | n | a | l | u | s || | r | t | c | l | e | i | a || | o | h | i | t | v | s | s || T | l | l | n | i | e | v | || o | k | e | n | m | l | i | C || t | l | t | a | o | a | l | I || a | y | i | t | r | n | l | t || l | n | c | i | e | d | e | y || s | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || . ———————–+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++— Victories | 10| 10| 10| 14| 16| 16| 16|| 92 Defeats | 10| 7| 8| 6| 4| 4| 4|| 43 Drawn Games | 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|| 2 Series Won | 0| 0| 0| 1| 1| 1| 1|| 4 Series Tied | 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|| 1 Series Unfinished | 0| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0|| 2 “Chicago” Victories | 3| 2| 0| 2| 4| 1| 0|| 12 “Chicago” Defeats | 1| 1| 1| 0| 1| 0| 0|| 4 Single Figure Victories| 9| 10| 8| 11| 13| 10| 14|| 75 Single Figure Defeats | 9| 5| 7| 6| 4| 3| 4|| 38 Double Figure Victories| 1| 0| 2| 3| 4| 6| 2|| 18 Double Figure Defeats | 1| 2| 1| 0| 0| 1| 0|| 5 Extra Innings Games | 2| 2| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0|| 5 Victories at Home | 6| 6| 6| 8| 9| 11| 14|| 60 Defeats at Home | 4| 3| 4| 3| 1| 2| 3|| 21 Victories Abroad | 4| 4| 4| 6| 7| 5| 2|| 32 Defeats Abroad | 6| 4| 4| 2| 3| 2| 1|| 22 Won by One Run | 2| 3| 2| 0| 3| 4| 1|| 15 Lost by One Run | 5| 1| 4| 4| 1| 1| 2|| 18 Highest Score in a Game|13-4| 8-1|17-5|16-9|14-4|18-1|14-5| Worst Defeat |2-11| 0-5|1-10| 2-6| 2-8|4-10| 7-9|

The pitching record of the champion team for 1888 is appended:

[**Proofreaders note: Table split into two parts to fit on page]

| | | | | | | K
| | | C | | | L | a
| | | i | B | C | o | n
| B | A | n | a | l | u | s
| r | t | c | l | e | i | a
| o | h | i | t | v | s | s
| l | l | n | i | e | v |
| k | e | n | m | l | i | C
| l | t | a | o | a | l | i
| y | i | t | r | n | l | t
| n | c | i | e | d | e | y
| . | . | . | . | . | . | .
————+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+—–+— |W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L. ————+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+– King | 8| 4| 6| 3| 5| 4| 6| 5| 1| 6| 3| 6| 1| 1 Hudson | 1| 3| 3| 2| 2| 0| 5| 1| 7| 2| 6| 0| 2| 2 Chamberlain | 1| 1| 1| 1| 3| 0| 1| 0| 1| 0| 2| 0| 2| 0 Devlin | 0| 1| 0| 1| 0| 2| 0| 0| 1| 0| 1| 0| 4| 1 Knauff | 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 2| 2| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 2| 0 Freeman | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0 ————+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+– Totals |10|10|10| 7|10| 8|14| 6|16| 4|16| 4|16| 4

| |Per
| |Cent
| |of
|Totals. |Victories.
————+————–+——— | W. | L. | P. |
————+—-+—-+—-+——— King | 44 | 21 | 65 | .671
Hudson | 26 | 10 | 36 | .722
Chamberlain | 11 | 2 | 13 | .853
Devlin | 6 | 5 | 11 | .545
Knauff | 5 | 4 | 9 | .555
Freeman | 0 | 1 | 1 | .000
————+—-+—-+—-+——— Totals | 92 | 43 |135 |

The appended record of the six years’ work in the American Association championship arena, showing the winning clubs and their managers, as also their victories, defeats and percentage of victories, will be found interesting:

|WINNING | | | | |
YEAR.|CLUB. |MANAGER.|Victories.|Defeats.|Games.|Percentage. —–+————+——–+———-+——–+——+———– 1882 |Cincinnati |Thorner | 55 | 25 | 80 | .680 1883 |Athletic |Simmons | 66 | 32 | 98 | .670 1884 |Metropolitan|Mutrie | 75 | 32 | 107 | .700 1885 |St. Louis |Comiskey| 79 | 33 | 112 | .705 1886 |St. Louis |Comiskey| 93 | 46 | 139 | .669 1887 |St. Louis |Comiskey| 95 | 40 | 135 | .704 1888 |St. Louis |Comiskey| 92 | 43 | 135 | .681

THE MONTHLY RECORD.

The record of the victories and defeats scored each month of the championship campaign is appended, by which it will be seen that the record of the Brooklyn team for October surpassed that of any other club’s monthly record of the season. Cincinnatis led in April, Brooklyn in May, the Athletics in June, Cincinnatis in July, St. Louis in August, while in September St. Louis and Brooklyn tied, Brooklyn leading in October. St. Louis’s best month’s work was done in August, Brooklyn’s in October, the Athletics’ in June, the Cincinnatis’ in July, the Baltimores’ in September, the Clevelands’ in September, the Louisvilles’ in July, and the Kansas Citys’ in August. Kansas City was the only club which failed in at least one month to score more victories than defeats, their best record for any month being a tie in victories and defeats. Here is the table in full:

|April.|May. |June.|July.|Aug. |Sept. |Oct. ||Totals. ———–+——+—–+—–+—–+—–+——-+—–++——- |W.| L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.| W.|L. |W.|L.|| W.|L. ———–+–+—+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+—+—+–+–++—+— St. Louis | 5| 3 |14| 5|16| 7|15|12|18| 3| 18| 8| 6| 5|| 92| 43 Brooklyn | 7| 5 |18| 4|14| 9|12|11| 8|14| 18| 8|11| 1|| 88| 52 Athletic | 7| 4 | 7|11|18| 4|12|11|16| 6| 14| 12| 7| 4|| 81| 52 Cincinnati | 8| 3 |15| 6| 9|13|16| 7|12| 9| 11| 14| 9| 2|| 80| 54 Baltimore | 6| 4 | 7|11|12|12| 9|17| 7|17| 13| 12| 3| 8|| 57| 80 Cleveland | 2| 9 | 9|11| 6|15|12|13| 6|12| 12| 12| 3|10|| 50| 82 Louisville | 4| 7 | 5|16| 7|15|13|10| 8|14| 7| 18| 4| 7|| 47| 87 Kansas City| 2| 6 | 5|16| 7|14| 9|17|11|11| 8| 15| 2| 8|| 43| 89 ———–+–+—+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+–+—+—+–+–++—+— Totals |41|41 |80|80|89|89|98|98|86|86|100|100|45|45||539|539

The Athletics’ victory over Baltimore on June 10, is not counted in the above table.

The official record of the American Association for the season of 1888 as sent us by President Wikoff, will be found in full below:

BATTING RECORD.

(In the following, no in or outfielders’ record is given unless twenty games have been played in the position, and no pitcher or catcher’s record is given unless fifteen games have been played.)

[**Proofreaders note: Table split into two parts to fit on page] | | |No. of
Rank| Name. | Club. |Games. —-+———–+————————+—— 1| O’Neill |St. Louis | 130
2| Stovey |Athletic | 130 3| Lyons |Athletic | 111
4| Reilly |Cincinnati | 126 5| Collins |Louisville and Brooklyn | 126 6| Browning |Louisville | 99
7| Orr |Brooklyn | 95
8| Burns |Baltimore and Brooklyn | 129 9| Wolf |Louisville | 127
10| McKean |Cleveland | 130 11|{Tucker |Baltimore | 136
|{Welch |Athletic | 136
12| Corkhill |Cincinnati and Brooklyn | 137 13|{Foutz |Brooklyn | 140
|{Larkin |Athletic | 135
14| Bierbauer |Athletic | 134 15| Sullivan |Athletic | 28
16| McCarthy |St. Louis | 131 17|{Trott |Baltimore | 31
|{O’Brien |Brooklyn | 136 18| Weaver |Louisville | 26
19| Comiskey |St. Louis | 137 20| Carpenter |Cincinnati | 135
21|{Robinson |Athletic | 67 |{Mattimore |Athletic | 41
22|{Davis |Kansas City | 122 |{Herr |St. Louis | 43
|{Stratton |Louisville | 65 23| Smith |Athletic and | 35
| |Baltimore |
24|{Latham |St. Louis | 133 |{Fantz |Cleveland | 120
25| Hudson |St. Louis | 55 26| Griffin |Baltimore | 137
27| Pinkney |Brooklyn | 143 28| Hecker |Louisville | 55
29|{Kappell |Cincinnati | 35 |{Terry |Brooklyn | 30
30| Milligan |St. Louis | 63 31|{McTamany |Kansas City | 110
|{Mullane |Cincinnati | 51 32|{Hamilton |Kansas City | 35
|{Zimmer |Cleveland | 63
|{Goodfellow|Cleveland | 69 |{Hotaling |Cleveland | 97
33| Smith |Louisville | 56 34|{Boyle |St. Louis | 71
|{Clark |Brooklyn | 45
35| Cline |Kansas City | 73 36| Donohue |Kansas City | 87
37| Kerins |Louisville | 81 38|{Nicol |Cincinnati | 134
|{Hogan |Cleveland | 77
39| Phillips |Kansas City | 129 40| Gilks |Cleveland | 118
41|{Robinson |St. Louis | 134 |{Stricker |Cleveland | 126
42|{McPhee |Cincinnati | 110 |{Carruthers|Brooklyn | 94
43| Keenan |Cincinnati | 84 44|{Tebean |Cincinnati | 121
|{Mack |Louisville | 110
45|{Goldsby |Baltimore | 44 |{Poorman |Athletic | 85
46| Esterbrook|Louisville | 23 47|{O’Brien |Baltimore | 57
|{Radford |Brooklyn | 91
48|{Gleason |Athletic | 123 |{Purcell |Baltimore | 119
| |and Athletic |
49| White |Louisville | 109 | |and St Louis. |
50|{Barkley |Kansas City | 116 |{Smith |Cincinnati | 40
|{_Bushong__|Brooklyn | 69 |{Baldwin |Cincinnati | 66
51|{Weybing |Athletic | 49 |{Fagan |Kansas City | 18
52| Gunning |Athletic | 23 53|{Shindle |Baltimore | 135
|{Snyder |Cleveland | 63
54|{McClellan |Brooklyn and | 97 | |Cleveland |
|{Sommer |Baltimore | 79
|{Allen |Kansas City | 37 55| _Smith_ |Brooklyn | 103
56| Cross |Louisville | 47 57| King |St. Louis | 65
58| Werrick |Louisville | 109

| |No. of|No. of|
| |Base |Stolen|Av. B.H.
Rank| Name. |Hit. |Bases.|to A.B. —-+———–+——+——+——-
1| O’Neill | 176 | 24 | .332
2| Stovey | 171 | 156 | .318
3| Lyons | 145 | 45 | .325
4| Reilly | 167 | 80 | .324
5| Collins | 164 | 91 | .318
6| Browning | 120 | 39 | .313
7| Orr | 119 | 16 | .303
8| Burns | 158 | 48 | .298
9| Wolf | 159 | 40 | .298
10| McKean | 161 | 66 | .297
11|{Tucker | 152 | 49 | .291
|{Welch | 160 | 121 | .291
12| Corkhill | 159 | 41 | .285
13|{Foutz | 159 | 40 | .283
|{Larkin | 154 | 19 | .283
14| Bierbauer | 148 | 56 | .279
15| Sullivan | 31 | 8 | .277
16| McCarthy | 141 | 109 | .276
17|{Trott | 30 | 3 | .275
|{O’Brien | 147 | 68 | .275
18| Weaver | 31 | 12 | .274
19| Comiskey | 156 | 77 | .271
20| Carpenter | 147 | 56 | .269
21|{Robinson | 67 | 15 | .268
|{Mattimore | 38 | 14 | .268
22|{Davis | 131 | 45 | .266
|{Herr | 46 | 9 | .266
|{Stratton | 64 | 15 | .266
23| Smith | 31 | 3 | .265
24|{Latham | 150 | 124 | .264
|{Fantz | 124 | 68 | .264
25| Hudson | 51 | 6 | .262
26| Griffin | 141 | 53 | .261
27| Pinkney | 150 | 56 | .260
28| Hecker | 53 | 23 | .255
29|{Kappell | 35 | 22 | .254
|{Terry | 29 | 13 | .254
30| Milligan | 55 | 8 | .252
31|{McTamany | 130 | 56 | .251
|{Mullane | 44 | 13 | .251
32|{Hamilton | 32 | 23 | .250
|{Zimmer | 53 | 18 | .250
|{Goodfellow| 68 | 7 | .250
|{Hotaling | 103 | 33 | .250
33| Smith | 48 | 48 | .246
34|{Boyle | 63 | 15 | .245
|{Clark | 37 | 12 | .245
35| Cline | 71 | 30 | .243
36| Donohue | 80 | 12 | .241
37| Kerins | 74 | 20 | .239
38|{Nicol | 128 | 104 | .236
|{Hogan | 63 | 35 | .236
39| Phillips | 120 | 11 | .235
40| Gilks | 110 | 19 | .232
41|{Robinson | 106 | 62 | .231
|{Stricker | 113 | 68 | .231
42|{McPhee | 104 | 53 | .230
|{Carruthers| 77 | 33 | .230
43| Keenan | 72 | 8 | .225
44|{Tebean | 95 | 33 | .228
|{Mack | 100 | 23 | .228
45|{Goldsby | 37 | 19 | .227
|{Poorman | 87 | 43 | .227
46| Esterbrook| 21 | 6 | .226
47|{O’Brien | 44 | 15 | .224
|{Radford | 70 | 36 | .224
48|{Gleason | 112 | 37 | .224
|{Purcell | 105 | 25 | .224
49| White | 104 | 30 | .221
50|{Barkley | 106 | 16 | .220
|{Smith | 29 | 3 | .220
|{_Bushong__| 55 | 11 | .220
|{Baldwin | 58 | 2 | .220
51|{Weybing | 40 | 8 | .219
|{Fagan | 14 | 0 | .219
52| Gunning | 20 | 15 | .217
53|{Shindle | 111 | 59 | .216
|{Snyder | 50 | 10 | .216
54|{McClellan | 75 | 29 | .215
|{Sommer | 64 | 15 | .215
|{Allen | 29 | 5 | .215
55| _Smith_ | 86 | 31 | .214
56| Cross | 39 | 9 | .213
57| King | 42 | 5 | .212
58| Werrick | 86 | 21 | .210

A mistake is made in the above record in placing the names of batsmen whose averages are alike, in the wrong order. Thus, Pratt who played in but 31 games is placed ahead of O’Brien, who played in 136, both making the same batting averages.

The official record of the American Association for the season of 1888 as sent us by President Wikoff, will be found in full below:

BATTING RECORD.

(In the following, no in or outfielders’ record is given unless twenty games have been played in the position, and no pitcher or catcher’s record is given unless fifteen games have been played.)

R | | | | | |Av.
a | | | |No. of|No. of|B.H. n | | |No. of|Base |Stolen|to k | Name. | Club. |Games.|Hit. |Bases.|A.B. –+—————+———–+——+——+——+—– 1| O’Neill |St. Louis | 130 | 176 | 24 | .332 2| Stovey |Athletic | 130 | 171 | 156 | .318 3| Lyons |Athletic | 111 | 145 | 45 | .325 4| Reilly |Cincinnati | 126 | 167 | 80 | .324 5| Collins |Louisville | 126 | 164 | 91 | .318 | |and | | | |
| |Brooklyn | | | |
6| Browning |Louisville | 99 | 120 | 39 | .313 7| Orr |Brooklyn | 95 | 119 | 16 | .303 8| Burns |Baltimore | 129 | 158 | 48 | .298 | |and | | | |
| |Brooklyn | | | |
9| Wolf |Louisville | 127 | 159 | 40 | .298 10| McKean |Cleveland | 130 | 161 | 66 | .297 11|{Tucker |Baltimore | 136 | 152 | 49 | .291 |{Welch |Athletic | 136 | 160 | 121 | .291 12| Corkhill |Cincinnati | 137 | 159 | 41 | .285 | |and | | | |
| |Brooklyn | | | |
13|{Foutz |Brooklyn | 140 | 159 | 40 | .283 |{Larkin |Athletic | 135 | 154 | 19 | .283 14| Bierbauer |Athletic | 134 | 148 | 56 | .279 15| Sullivan |Athletic | 28 | 31 | 8 | .277 16| McCarthy |St. Louis | 131 | 141 | 109 | .276 17|{Trott |Baltimore | 31 | 30 | 3 | .275 |{O’Brien |Brooklyn | 136 | 147 | 68 | .275 18| Weaver |Louisville | 26 | 31 | 12 | .274 19| Comiskey |St. Louis | 137 | 156 | 77 | .271 20| Carpenter |Cincinnati | 135 | 147 | 56 | .269 21|{Robinson |Athletic | 67 | 67 | 15 | .268 |{Mattimore |Athletic | 41 | 38 | 14 | .268 22|{Davis |Kansas City| 122 | 131 | 45 | .266 |{Herr |St. Louis | 43 | 46 | 9 | .266 |{Stratton |Louisville | 65 | 64 | 15 | .266 23| Smith |Athletic | 35 | 31 | 3 | .265 | |and | | | |
| |Baltimore | | | |
24|{Latham |St. Louis | 133 | 150 | 124 | .264 |{Fantz |Cleveland | 120 | 124 | 68 | .264 25| Hudson |St. Louis | 55 | 51 | 6 | .262 26| Griffin |Baltimore | 137 | 141 | 53 | .261 27| Pinkney |Brooklyn | 143 | 150 | 56 | .260 28| Hecker |Louisville | 55 | 53 | 23 | .255 29|{Kappell |Cincinnati | 35 | 35 | 22 | .254 |{Terry |Brooklyn | 30 | 29 | 13 | .254 30| Milligan |St. Louis | 63 | 55 | 8 | .252 31|{McTamany |Kansas City| 110 | 130 | 56 | .251 |{Mullane |Cincinnati | 51 | 44 | 13 | .251 32|{Hamilton |Kansas City| 35 | 32 | 23 | .250 |{Zimmer |Cleveland | 63 | 53 | 18 | .250 |{Goodfellow |Cleveland | 69 | 68 | 7 | .250 |{Hotaling |Cleveland | 97 | 103 | 33 | .250 33| Smith |Louisville | 56 | 48 | 48 | .246 34|{Boyle |St. Louis | 71 | 63 | 15 | .245 |{Clark |Brooklyn | 45 | 37 | 12 | .245 35| Cline |Kansas City| 73 | 71 | 30 | .243 36| Donohue |Kansas City| 87 | 80 | 12 | .241 37| Kerins |Louisville | 81 | 74 | 20 | .239 38|{Nicol |Cincinnati | 134 | 128 | 104 | .236 |{Hogan |Cleveland | 77 | 63 | 35 | .236 39| Phillips |Kansas City| 129 | 120 | 11 | .235 40| Gilks |Cleveland | 118 | 110 | 19 | .232 41|{Robinson |St. Louis | 134 | 106 | 62 | .231 |{Stricker |Cleveland | 126 | 113 | 68 | .231 42|{McPhee |Cincinnati | 110 | 104 | 53 | .230 |{Carruthers |Brooklyn | 94 | 77 | 33 | .230 43| Keenan |Cincinnati | 84 | 72 | 8 | .225 44|{Tebean |Cincinnati | 121 | 95 | 33 | .228 |{Mack |Louisville | 110 | 100 | 23 | .228 45|{Goldsby |Baltimore | 44 | 37 | 19 | .227 |{Poorman |Athletic | 85 | 87 | 43 | .227 46| Esterbrook |Louisville | 23 | 21 | 6 | .226 47|{O’Brien |Baltimore | 57 | 44 | 15 | .224 |{Radford |Brooklyn | 91 | 70 | 36 | .224 48|{Gleason |Athletic | 123 | 112 | 37 | .224 |{Purcell |Baltimore | 119 | 105 | 25 | .224 | |and | | | |
| |Athletic | | | |
49| White |Louisville | 109 | 104 | 30 | .221 | |and St. | | | |
| |Louis | | | |
50|{Barkley |Kansas City| 116 | 106 | 16 | .220 |{Smith |Cincinnati | 40 | 29 | 3 | .220 |{_Bushong_ |Brooklyn | 69 | 55 | 11 | .220 |{Baldwin |Cincinnati | 66 | 58 | 2 | .220 51|{Weybing |Athletic | 49 | 40 | 8 | .219 |{Fagan |Kansas City| 18 | 14 | 0 | .219 52| Gunning |Athletic | 23 | 20 | 15 | .217 53|{Shindle |Baltimore | 135 | 111 | 59 | .216 |{Snyder |Cleveland | 63 | 50 | 10 | .216 54|{McClellan |Brooklyn | 97 | 75 | 29 | .215 | |and | | | |
| |Cleveland | | | |
|{Sommer |Baltimore | 79 | 64 | 15 | .215 |{Allen |Kansas City| 37 | 29 | 5 | .215 55| _Smith_ |Brooklyn | 103 | 86 | 31 | .214 56| Cross |Louisville | 47 | 39 | 9 | .213 57| King |St. Louis | 65 | 42 | 5 | .212 58| Werrick |Louisville | 109 | 86 | 21 | .210 59| Raymond |Louisville | 32 | 26 | 6 | .208 60| McGuire |Cleveland | 25 | 18 | 1 | .207 61| Ewing |Louisville | 21 | 16 | 6 | .205 62| Daniels |Kansas City| 61 | 46 | 19 | .205 63| Vaughn |Louisville | 49 | 37 | 5 | .203 64| Greenwood |Baltimore | 113 | 82 | 54 | .202 64| Andrews |Louisville | 27 | 20 | 5 | .202 65| O’Connor |Cincinnati | 36 | 28 | 13 | .201 66| Cook |Louisville | 53 | 35 | 15 | .200 67| _Peoples_ |Brooklyn | 33 | 21 | 9 | .198 68| Farrell |Baltimore | 103 | 79 | 32 | .197 69| Fennelly |Cincinnati | 127 | 96 | 49 | .196 | |and | | | |
| |Athletic | | | |
70| Esterday |Kansas City| 114 | 78 | 18 | .195 70| Rowe |Kansas City| 32 | 24 | 1 | .195 71| Albert |Cleveland | 101 | 69 | 32 | .192 72| Lyons |St. Louis | 123 | 95 | 42 | .190 73| Cunningham |Baltimore | 51 | 33 | 2 | .198 74| McGarr |St. Louis | 35 | 25 | 25 | .187 75| O’Brien |Cleveland | 31 | 20 | 2 | .185 76| McGlone |Cleveland | 55 | 37 | 26 | .183 77| Fulmer |Baltimore | 51 | 30 | 17 | .179 78| Hankinson |Kansas City| 37 | 27 | 2 | .175 79| Brennan |Kansas City| 34 | 20 | 6 | .174 80| Kilroy |Baltimore | 43 | 24 | 12 | .166 81| Cantz |Baltimore | 37 | 21 | 1 | .165 82| Chamberlain |Louisville | 40 | 23 | 12 | .161 | |and St. | | | |
| |Louis | | | |
83| Seward |Athletic | 64 | 35 | 12 | .154 84| Townsend |Athletic | 43 | 24 | 1 | .150 84| Hughes |Brooklyn | 39 | 20 | 3 | .150 85| Tomney |Louisville | 34 | 18 | 12 | .149 86| Porter |Kansas City| 55 | 27 | 1 | .137 87| Bakely |Cleveland | 60 | 25 | 1 | .131 88| Burdock |Brooklyn | 60 | 30 | 9 | .125 89| Ramsey |Louisville | 41 | 17 | 0 | .123 90| Holbert |Brooklyn | 15 | 6 | 1 | .115 91| Sullivan |Kansas City| 28 | 10 | 7 | .109 92| Mays |Brooklyn | 18 | 6 | 2 | .095 93| Viau |Cincinnati | 41 | 12 | 3 | .085 94| Crowell |Louisville | 19 | 5 | 2 | .080 | |and |
| |Cleveland |

FIELDING RECORD.

CATCHERS.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+———-+———–+——+——-+——— 1 | Donohue |Kansas City| 66 | 395 | .965 2 |(Robinson |Athletic | 66 | 595 | .955 |{Keenan |Cincinnati | 70 | 536 | .955 3 | Milligan |St. Louis | 58 | 429 | .944 4 | Holbert |Brooklyn | 15 | 106 | .934 5 | Boyle |St. Louis | 70 | 539 | .933 6 | Cross |Louisville | 38 | 292 | .928 7 | Snyder |Cleveland | 43 | 334 | .922 8 | Zimmer |Cleveland | 56 | 443 | .921 9 | Trott |Baltimore | 27 | 205 | .917 10 |{Vaughn |Louisville | 25 | 184 | .913 |{Baldwin |Cincinnati | 64 | 483 | .913 11 | Bushong |Brooklyn | 68 | 489 | .9** | | | | | [A]
12 | Townsend |Athletic | 43 | 330 | .906 13 | O’Brien |Baltimore | 38 | 274 | .905 14 | Fulmer |Baltimore | 46 | 309 | .903 15 | Cook |Louisville | 50 | 316 | .902 16 | Gunning |Athletic | 23 | 192 | .896 17 | Cantz |Baltimore | 33 | 227 | .890 18 | Kerins |Louisville | 30 | 320 | .888 19 | Brennan |Kansas City| 25 | 176 | .887 20 | McGuire |Cleveland | 16 | 131 | .885 21 | Daniels |Kansas City| 31 | 232 | .875 22 | Clark |Brooklyn | 36 | 307 | .857 23 | Peoples |Brooklyn | 26 | 252 | .841

[*Proofreaders Note A: * number indecipherable.]

PITCHERS.
Rank| NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+————+———–+——+——-+——– 1 | Chamberlain|Louisville | 37 | 255 | .988 | |and St. | | |
| |Louis | | |
2 | Ewing |Louisville | 21 | 135 | .985 3 | Terry |Brooklyn | 24 | 186 | .978 4 | Mays |Brooklyn | 18 | 12O | .975 5 | Foutz |Brooklyn | 19 | 115 | .974 6 | Sullivan |Kansas City| 24 | 167 | .970 7 | Stratton |Louisville | 34 | 184 | .968 8 |(Hudson |St. Louis | 37 | 230 | .962 |{Kilroy |Baltimore | 42 | 229 | .965 9 |{Hughes |Brooklyn | 39 | 261 | .962 |{King |St. Louis | 65 | 397 | .962 10 |{Crowell |Cleveland | | |
| |and | | |
| |Louisville | 19 | 103 | .961 |{Bakely |Cleveland | 60 | 359 | .961 |{Mullane |Cincinnati | 44 | 284 | .961 |{Viau |Cincinnati | 41 | 257 | .961 11 | Seward |Athletic | 57 | 428 | .957 12 | O’Brien |Cleveland | 29 | 213 | .953 13 | Porter |Kansas City| 55 | 507 | .951 14 |{Weyhing |Athletic | 48 | 328 | .948 |{Smith |Cincinnati | 4O | 211 | .948 15 | Carruthers |Brooklyn | 45 | 273 | .945 16 | Hecker |Louisville | 28 | 154 | .942 17 | Smith |Athletic | 38 | 248 | .940 | |and | | |
| |Baltimore | | |
19 | Cunningham |Baltimore | 51 | 335 | .934 20 | Ramsey |Louisville | 37 | 290 | .924 21 | Mattimore |Athletic | 26 | 162 | .914 81 | Fagan |Kansas City| 17 | 92 | .913 {sic.}|

This table is rendered useless as a criterion of a pitcher’s skill as a fielder, on account of the mixing up of assistances on strikes with fielding assistances, which are distinct and separate figures for data.

FIRST BASEMEN.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+————+———–+——+——-+——– 1 | Andrews |Louisville.| 27 | 302 | .993 2 |{Foutz |Brooklyn | 42 | 371 | .986 |{Faatz |Cleveland | 120 | 1247 | .986 3 | Orr |Brooklyn | 95 | 1044 | .980 4 | Reilly |Cincinnati | 116 | 1313 | .979 5 | Phillips |Kansas City| 119 | 1500 | .977 6 | Tucker |Baltimore | 129 | 1441 | .975 7 | Smith |Louisville | 56 | 578 | .974 8 |{Larkin |Athletic | 121 | 1294 | .972 |{Comiskey |St. Louis | 133 | 1379 | .972 9 | Esterbrook |Louisville | 23 | 238 | .958 10 |Hecker |Louisville | 27 | 294 | .952

SECOND BASEMEN.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+————+———–+——+——-+——– 1 | Berkley |Kansas City| 116 | 683 | .941 2 |{Striekler |Cleveland | 122 | 791 | .938 |{McPhee |Cincinnati | 110 | 776 | .938 3 | Bierbauer |Athletics | 122 | 795 | .935 4 | Collins |Louisville | 30 | 170 | .926 | |and | | |
| |Brooklyn | | |
5 | McClellan |Brooklyn | 62 | 346 | .920 | |and | | |
| |Cleveland. | | |
6 | Burdock |Brooklyn | 69 | 431 | .919 7 | Mack |Louisville | 110 | 703 | .915 8 |{Greenwood |Baltimore | 87 | 442 | .914 |{Farrell |Baltimore | 47 | 174 | .913 9 | McGarr |St. Louis | 34 | 193 | .915 10 | Robinson |St. Louis | 100 | 496 | .904

SHORT STOPS.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+———+————-+——+——-+——– 1 |Farell |Baltimore | 56 | 395 | .937 2 |Tomney |Louisville | 34 | 174 | .914 3 |Esterday |Kansas City | 114 | 640 | .900 4 |McKean |Cleveland | 75 | 380 | .895 5 |Sommer |Baltimore | 32 | 161 | .885 6 |Herr |St.Louis | 28 | 133 | .872 7 |Fenelly |Cincinnati | 120 | 723 | .871 | |and | | |
| |Athletic | | |
8 |Gleason |Athletic | 121 | 565 | .865 9 |Wolf |Louisville | 38 | 222 | .860 10 |Alberts |Cleveland | 52 | 272 | .857 11 |Burns |Baltimore | 53 | 277 | .848 | |and | | |
| |Brooklyn | | |
12 |Smith |Brooklyn | 103 | 600 | .847 13 |Robinson |St. Louis | 34 | 168 | .845 14 |Greenwood|Baltimore | 26 | 118 | .831 15 |White |Louisville | 96 | 596 | .827 | |and St. Louis| | |
16 |Kapell |Cincinnati | 21 | 107 | .785

LEFT FIELDERS.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+————+———–+——+——-+——– 1 |Stovey |Athletic | 117 | 226 | .950 2 |Browning |Louisville | 21 | 35 | .943 3 |Allen |Kansas City| 33 | 80 | .938 4 |O’Neill |St. Louis | 130 | 257 | .934 5 |O’Brien |Brooklyn | 136 | 261 | .931 6 |Collins |Louisville | 57 | 152 | .921 | |and | | |
| |Brooklyn | | |
7 |{Sommer |Baltimore | 30 | 56 | .911 |{Tebeau |Cincinnati | 121 | 235 | .911 8 |Vaughn |Louisville | 20 | 40 | .900 9 |Goldsby |Baltimore | 42 | 58 | .893 10 |McKean |Cleveland | 43 | 88 | .886 11 |{Hogan |Cleveland | 26 | 41 | .878 |{Gilks |Cleveland | 58 | 115 | .878 12 |Burns |Baltimore | 47 | 120 | .833 | |and | | |
| |Brooklyn | | |
13 |Cline |Kansas City| 26 | 46 | .826 14 |Sullivan |Kansas City| 16 | 25 | .800 15 |Stratton |Louisville | 23 | 37 | .730

THIRD BASEMEN.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+———+———–+——+——-+——– 1 |Shindle |Baltimore | 135 | 606 | .919 2 |Pinkney |Brooklyn | 143 | 470 | .896 3 |Albert |Cleveland | 48 | 198 | .894 4 |Lyons |Athletic | 111 | 397 | .889 5 |Latham |St. Louis | 132 | 525 | .882 6 |Carpenter|Cincinnati | 135 | 491 | .878 7 |Raymond |Louisville | 31 | 129 | .876 8 |Davis |Kansas City| 114 | 576 | .849 9 |Werrick |Louisville | 89 | 321 | .822 10 |Gilks |Cleveland | 26 | 109 | .798 11 |McGlone |Cleveland | 48 | 198 | .793

RIGHT FIELDERS

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number|Chances|Per Cent. | | |Games.|Offered|Accepted. —-+———-+———–+——+——-+——— 1 |Hogan |Cleveland | 51 | 90 | .988 2 |McClellan |Brooklyn | 32 | 52 | .962 | |and | | |
| |Cleveland | | |
3 |Nicol |Cincinnati | 124 | 218 | .959 4 |Hamilton |Kansas City| 29 | 35 | .943 5 |Foutz |Brooklyn | 78 | 251 | .932 6 |McCarthy |St. Louis | 118 | 276 | .924 7 |Purcell |Athletic | 111 | 182 | .923 | |and | | |
| |Baltimore | | |
8 |Carruthers|Brooklyn | 31 | 80 | .900 8 |Cline |Kansas City| 44 | 80 | .900 9 |Poorman |Athletic | 85 | 134 | .896 10 |Wolf |Louisville | 83 | 158 | .892 11 |McTamany |Kansas City| 48 | 92 | .891 12 |Goodfellow|Cleveland | 51 | 100 | .850 13 |Kerins |Louisville | 35 | 61 | .820

CENTER FIELDERS.

Rank|NAME. |CLUB. |Number |Chances |Per Cent. | | |Games. |Offered |Accepted. —-+——–+———–+——-+——–+——— 1 |Welch |Athletic | 135 | 309 | .968 2 |Corkhill|Cincinnati | 131 | 320 | .966 | |and | | |
| |Brooklyn | | |
3 |Gilks |Cleveland | 26 | 50 | .960 4 |Radford |Brooklyn | 84 | 208 | .947 5 |Griffin |Baltimore | 137 | 323 | .941 6 |McTamany|Kansas City| 68 | 206 | .932 7 |Lyons |St. Louis | 108 | 267 | .910 8 |Weaver |Louisville | 26 | 49 | .898 8 |Rowe |Kansas City| 32 | 68 | .897 9 |Browning|Louisville | 78 | 181 | .884 10 |Hotaling|Cleveland | 97 | 200 | .875 11 |Collins |Louisville | 24 | 61 | .852 | |and | | |
| |Brooklyn | | |
12 |O’Connor|Cincinnati | 19 | 39 | .846

CLUB BATTING RECORD

Rank|Clubs |Number |Times |Runs|Number |Stolen|Per cent | |of Games|at Bat| |of Base|Bases |B. H. to | | | | |Hits | |A. B.
—-+———–+——–+——+—-+——-+——+—— 1 |Athletic | 136 | 4801 | 828| 1262 | 568 | .263 2 |St. Louis | 137 | 4753 | 790| 1188 | 526 | .250 3 |Louisville | 137 | 4807 | 678| 1190 | 368 | .248 4 |Brooklyn | 143 | 4868 | 757| 1183 | 413 | .243