Spalding's Baseball Guide and Official League Book for 1889

Produced by Joshua Hutchinson, Lorna Hanrahan

and PG Distributed Proofreaders

[Illustration: *Text included in illustration.
Spalding's Official Base Ball Guide*]

THE SPALDING TRADE MARK.

[Illustration : *Spalding trade mark*]

Experience has shown that in Base Ball and Athletic Goods, as in all other lines of business, unprincipled persons are always eager to prey on the reputation gained by honest dealing and good business management. We regret to state that we have not escaped the attention of such parties, who have appropriated our original designs, styles and names, and by using similar illustrations and descriptions, deceive the public into believing that the articles were manufactured by us, and that we are responsible for their inferior quality. A wide acquaintance with sportsmen and an extended experience with the various sports, has enabled us to anticipate the wants of our patrons in securing outfits, and to offer only such articles as were perfectly satisfactory for our own use, knowing by practical tests that they would serve the purpose properly, and be unfailing to the purchaser.

In order to protect our customers, and to preserve our reputation, we have found it necessary to place our "Trade Mark" on the higher grades of goods that we manufacture and introduce. The care and discrimination exercised in selecting only articles of the highest quality as being worthy of bearing our Trade Mark, has resulted in giving to them a reputation as being practically the best of their kind that could be produced.

In our opinion a satisfied customer is the best advertisement that we can have, and dealers and individuals will please bear in mind that on whatever article our TRADE MARK appears, we guarantee it to be exactly as represented, and wherever just cause for complaint exists, we will thank the purchaser for returning the article to us and receiving a perfect one in return, or the refunding of the purchase money. Our line of Base Balls is now so well known to the trade, and they are so thoroughly appreciated by the base ball players of the country, that it seems almost unnecessary to call special attention to their superior merits. Spalding's League Ball, having stood the severe test of the National League for the last ten years, and having again been adopted as the official ball of that leading organization for 1888 as well as the other prominent professional College and Amateur Associations, gives it a reputation and sale unequalled by any other ball on the market. BEWARE OF CHEAP IMITATIONS; NO League Ball is genuine without our Trade Mark on each box and ball, and the autograph of [Illustration: *Autogram of A. G. Spalding*] on each label.

We hope that ball players will not be misled by the remarks of interested dealers handling inferior goods, that the articles they offer "are just as good as Spalding's" and at a cheaper price. We accept their frequent references to our goods as the highest compliment that can be paid us, and only ask that purchasers will do their own comparisons, and be convinced that our goods are really the cheapest as they certainly are the best. Special trade prices are quoted to dealers on application.

CHICAGO. A. G. SPALDING & BROS. NEW YORK.

Publisher's Notice

* * * * *

"Spalding's Base Ball Guide" again greets the base ball public with the official records of America's national game. First issued in 1877, it has grown in popularity, has been enlarged and improved from year to year, and is now the recognized authority upon base ball matters. The statistics contained in the "Guide" can be relied upon, nearly all of them having been compiled from official records.

The "Guide" has attained such a size—180 pages—as to preclude the possibility of publishing in the same issue the League Constitution in full, and other interesting League matter. We are therefore compelled, in addition, to publish the "Official League Book," which contains only official League matter as furnished by Secretary Young, including the League Constitution in full.

Copies of the "Guide" or "League Book," will be mailed to any address upon receipt of twelve cents each. Trade orders supplied through the News Companies, or direct from the publishers.

CHICAGO. A. G. SPALDING & BROS. NEW YORK

* * * * *

WASHINGTON, D. C., March 5, 1889.

By the authority vested in me, I do hereby certify that Messrs. A. G. Spalding & Bros., of Chicago and New York, have been granted the exclusive right to publish the Official League Book for 1889.

N. E. YOUNG,
Secretary National League of Professional Base Ball Clubs.

DEPOTS OF SUPPLIES FOR THE SALE OF A. G. SPALDING AND BROS. ATHLETIC GOODS

For the convenience of our patrons, and for the purpose of bringing our complete line of Athletic Goods more prominently before Base Ball Players, we have arranged with the following houses to carry at all times a complete line of all our Athletic Goods. Their prices will be the same as ours. Orders for goods may be sent to

WESTERN DEPOTS.

A. G. SPALDING & BROS 108 Madison St., Chicago, Ill.
E. C. MEACHAM ARMS CO. 515 Washington Ave., St. Louis, Mo.
J. R. HAWLEY 164 Vine St., Cincinnati, Ohio
BURROWS BROS. CO. 23 to 27 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, Ohio
J. B. FIELD & CO. 77 Woodward Ave., Detroit, Mich.
V. KINDLER 418 Genessee Ave. East Saginaw, Mich.
E. G. STUDLEY & CO. 4 Monroe St., Grand Rapids, Mich.
CHAS. MAYER & CO. 29 Washington St., Indianapolis, Ind.
A. G. PRATT & CO. 502 Wood St., Pittsburgh, Pa.
WEST BOOK & STATIONERY CO. 379 & 381 Broadway, Milwaukee, Wis.
G. B. GROSVENOR 744 Main St., Dubuque, Iowa
J W. RECCIUS & BRO 304 Market St., Louisville, Ky.
S. G. MORTON & CO. 426 Nicollet Ave. Minneapolis, Minn.
JOURNAL PUBLISHING CO. Helena, Montana
COLLINS GUN CO. 1312 Douglas St., Omaha, Neb.
M. F. KENNEDY & BROS 66 East 3d St., St, Paul, Minn
GEO. F HIGGINS & CO. 354 16th St., Denver, Col.
F. M. MENGES Sporting Goods CO. 924 Main St Kansas City, Mo.
WM. BECK & SON 165 2d St. Portland, Oregon
REDHEAD, NORTON, LATHROP & CO. Des Moines, Iowa
TUFTS. LYON ARMS CO. Los Angeles, Cal.

EASTERN DEPOTS.

A. G. SPALDING & BROS 241 Broadway, N. Y.
E. W. VINE 1 Green St., Albany, N. Y.
S G. LEVALLEY 189 Main St., Buffalo, N. Y.
RHODE ISLAND NEWS CO. 113 Westminster St., Providence, R.I.
SCRANTOM, WETMORE & Co 10 State St., Rochester, N. Y.
R. WOOD'S SONS 72 S. Salina St., Syracuse, N. Y.
M. W. BULL & Co 445 Main St., Springfield, Mass.
M. C. EBBECKE & Co Allentown, Pa.
M. A. TAPPAN 1013 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D. C.
VON LENGERKE & DETMOLD Newark, N. J.

SOUTHERN DEPOTS.

F. F. HANSELL & BRO 28 and 30 Camp St., New Orleans, La.
A. J. ANDERSON 2d and Houston Sts. Fort Worth, Texas
R. M. MANSFORD 293 Main St., Memphis, Tenn.
BIRMINGHAM ARMS Co Birmingham, Ala.
H. DREW & BRO Jacksonville, Fla.
J. W. SAWYER Key West, Fla.

FOREIGN DEPOTS.

McLEAN BROS & RIGG, Limited Sydney, Australia
McLEAN BROS & RIGG, Limited Adelaide, Australia
BOYLE & SCOTT Melbourne, Australia
W. MCARTHUR & Co Auckland, N. Z.
THOS. LACK Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands
THE HINGSTON-SMITH ARMS Co Winnipeg, Manitoba
C. FLOOD & SONS St. Johns, N. B.

LOCAL AGENCIES.

WESTERN.

A. G. CASE Aurora, Ill.
C. E. DALTON Bloomington, Ill.
A. P. CUNNINGHAM Champaign, Ill.
C. H. CARYL Kalamazoo, Mich.
SPENCER BROS Marquette, Mich.
JOHN T. BUKER Rockford, Ill.
BAKER & WATSON Terre Haute, Ind.
GREGORY & Co Winona, Minn.
J. A. ELLIOTT Danville, Ill.

EASTERN.

N. A. FROST Hanover, N. H.
G. W. BLODGETT & Co Amherst, Mass.
TALBOT BROS Pittsfield, Mass
J. W. BRINE New Haven, Ct.
C. S. WEST Flushing, L. I.
J. W. BRINE Cambridge, Mass.
A. H. POMEROY Hartford, Ct
HIRST & LEACH Princeton, N. J.
A. W. SCOTT Stamford, Ct.
BRENNAN & DAVIS Bradford, Pa.
F. A. CLAPP & Co Worcester, Mass.
GEO. DART Tuxedo, N. Y.

WILLIAM A. HULBERT.

The late Mr. William A Hulbert may be justly considered as the Father of the National League, for he it was who in 1875 was mainly instrumental in bringing about the secession from the old National Professional Association in 1875 which resulted in the establishment of the National League in 1876. To Mr. Hulbert is due the credit of rescuing professional ball playing from the abuses which prevailed in the ranks at the time he first became connected with the Chicago Club. Especially to his persistent course in refusing to consent to the reinstatement of any player expelled from a professional club for crooked play, is the present honesty of the game due. Mr. Hulbert was the second President of the National league, Mr. M G Bulkely, the present Governor of Connecticut, being the League s first President. Mr. Hulbert died in April, 1882 from heart disease. He was essentially a reformer and in his business and social relations sincerity and candor were marked characteristics. The National League adopted this resolution at his death: Resolved That to him alone is due the credit of having founded the National League, and to his able leadership, sound judgment and impartial management is the success of the League chiefly due.

SPALDING'S BASE BALL GUIDE AND
Official League Book for 1889.

A complete hand book of the national game of base ball,

CONTAINING

Statistical reviews of the various professional association championship seasons, as also the records and averages of the inter-collegiate associations, east & west.

ADDED TO WHICH IS THE

COMPLETE OFFICIAL LEAGUE RECORD FOR 1888.

ALSO

Brief Record of the Base Ball Tours to England in 1874 and to Australia in 1888.

TOGETHER WITH

The new code of playing rules, as revised by the committee of conference.

Attached to which is an official explanatory appendix, giving a correct interpretation of the new rules, also the official record of all league games and players, and the official schedule of league games for 1889, pitchers' records in victories for 1888.

Base running and throwing records of 1888, with the leading noteworthy events. Records of the veteran batsmen of the league from 1876 to 1888.

Handsomely Illustrated with Portraits and Pictures

[Illustration: Boston Grounds.]

[Illustration: CORRECT DIAGRAM OF A BALL GROUND.]

[Illustration: PHILADELPHIA GROUNDS]

The publishers of "Spalding's Base Ball Guide" present to the fraternity in the GUIDE for 1889, the model baseball annual of the period; the thirteenth annual edition of the work being in every respect the most complete baseball GUIDE ever issued. Exceeding as it does every other book of the kind in size—over two hundred pages of reading matter —as also in its new feature of pictorial illustrations, it presents an epitome of the professional history of the game for 1888, unequaled by any other work of the kind previously published. In fact, the GUIDE for 1889 has been made to conform to the very exceptional year of important events its chapters record—a year which will be remembered for a long time to come as fruitful of the most noteworthy occurrences known in the annals of our national game.

The prominent features of the GUIDE for 1889 are the complete record of the pitching in the League and American championship contests; the instructive chapters on "the lessons of the campaign," then on "team work;" the analyses of the play in the world's championship series of contests; the new tables showing the figures of the campaigns of the past eighteen years, and especially the explanatory appendix or chapter of official instructions to umpires and captains.

The great size of the GUIDE precludes the possibility of including the games record of the League campaign, as also other records of League legislation, etc., and these will be found in the "Official League Book," which contains only official League matter as furnished by Secretary Young, including the League Constitution in full.

[Illustration: CHICAGO GROUNDS.]

The American national game of base ball has reached a period in its history, when it no longer needs to be referred to as a field exercise, calling for particular mention of its peculiar merits. It is now the established favorite game of ball of the American people, and occupies a position in public estimation which no other field sport in vogue approaches. The game has attained its present position of popularity, not only from its adaptability to our peculiar national characteristics, as regards its possession of special points of attraction; but also from its value as a field sport which presents sufficient excitement in itself to draw thousands of spectators, without the extrinsic aid of betting as its chief point of interest, the latter attraction being something which pertains to nearly every other popular sport. Then, too, it should be borne in mind that base ball first taught us Americans the value of physical exercise as an important aid to perfect work in cultivating the mind up to its highest point. It is to the introduction of base ball as a national pastime, in fact, that the growth of athletic sports in general in popularity is largely due; and the game pointed out to the mercantile community of our large cities that "all work and no play" is the most costly policy they can pursue, both in regard to the advantages to their own health, and in the improvement in the work of their employees, the combination of work and play judiciously, yielding results in better work and more satisfactory service than was possible under the old rule. Thus, the game has acted like a lever in lifting into public favor all athletic sports.

A great deal is said about the special attraction of this and that leading sport of the day. The turfman thinks there is nothing approaching the excitement of a horse race, which from the start to the finish occupies but a few minutes of time. The rower regards a three mile "shell" race as the very acme of sporting pleasures; while the yachtsman looks upon all other contests as of trifling importance compared with that ending in the winning of his club regatta cup; and so on through the whole category of sports of the field, the forest and the river. But if any one can present to us a sport or pastime, a race or a contest, which can in all its essentials of stirring excitement, displays of manly courage, nerve and endurance, and its unwearying scenes of skillful play and alternations of success equal our national game of ball, we should like to see it.

What can present a more attractive picture to the lover of out door sports than the scene presented at a base ball match between two trained professional teams competing for championship honors, in which every point of play is so well looked after in the field, that it is only by some extra display of skill at the bat, that a single run is obtained in a full nine innings game? If it is considered, too, that base ball is a healthy, recreative exercise, suitable for all classes of our people, there can be no surprise that such a game should reach the unprecedented popularity it has.

THE PROFESSIONAL SEASON OF 1888.

The season of 1888, in the professional arena, was marked by several events which placed it on record as the most noteworthy, known in the thirteen years' history of the National League. In the first place it was the inaugural year of the grand movement made by the President of the Chicago Club, to extend the popularity of our national game beyond the American continent; an event which exhibited the characteristic energy, pluck, liberality and business enterprise of Mr. Spalding, in a very marked manner; the grand success which the venture met with being a well merited reward for the large financial outlay which he incurred in the experiment. Secondly, the struggle for the championship of the League, resulting as it did in the success of the New York club, gave to the East a lead in the pennant races which they had not held since 1884, when the Providence club won the championship, Chicago having held the honors in 1885 and 1886, and Detroit in 1887. The past season, too, excelled all previous years in the vast assemblages of spectators who were gathered at the grounds of the prominent clubs on holiday occasions; as also in the immense aggregate of people who patronized the professional contests of the year. It was also an exceptional year in regard to the close and exciting contest for the League pennant, between the four leading clubs of that organization; and at the end of the championship season the sequel of the contest for the base ball championship of the world finished off the campaign of 1888, in a manner that greatly added to the honors won by the victorious League club from New York. The contest for the American Association championship was also one of the interesting events of the season, and one, too, which taught aspiring clubs a lesson which they can well profit by; and that is, that success in championship contests is due far more to able management, competent captaining, and thorough team work, than to the gathering together of the strongest of star players in a club team. In the League, in this respect, while the Boston club had invested, at great financial cost, in securing the services of noted star players, the Chicago club, though weakened by the release of players from their team who had done yeoman service in their ranks for years, were yet able to excel the picked team of star players of the Boston club, simply by superiority in handling those they had left to them. In the Association arena, too, a similar condition of things prevailed in the case of the St. Louis and Brooklyn clubs, the costly investment of the Brooklyn club for new players, only enabling them to reach second place in the pennant race, while the "weakened"(?) St Louis team, by better conceited work together were enabled to break the record by capturing the Association pennant for the fourth successive season, something only equaled by the Boston club under the reign of the old National Association in 1872, '73, '74, and '75.

An event of the season of 1888, also, was the widening the sphere of professional club operations in the United States, by the inauguration of the Texas League, which, though not as successful as desired in its first year, nevertheless opened up a new and large territory for the occupation of the professional clubs. Closing too, as the year did with a commendable movement on the part of the League legislators to regulate the salary system so as to get rid of several costly abuses; it may be justly said that in no year since professional ball playing was officially recognized, was there so much done to promote the welfare of the national game as during the season of 1888.

The summary record of the season's work of the several professional
Leagues and Association prominent during the season of 1888, is as follows:

[**Proofreaders note A: * indecipherable number**]

| Number of Clubs.
| Began the | Ended the
Leagues | Season. | Season.
—————————————-+——————-+————-
National League | 8 | 8
American Association | 8 | 8
International Association | 8 | 8
Western Association | 8 | 7
Central League | 8 | 7
Southern League | 4 | 4
New England League | 7 | 4
California League | 4 | 4
Texas League | 6 | 4
Tri-State League | 10 | 10

THE LEAGUE'S PENNANT RACE OF 1888.

The championship campaign of the League for 1888 began on April 20, with the customary home games between the eight clubs, each in its respective section, the New York team opening the season at Washington, and the Bostons at Philadelphia; while in the West Detroit opened at Pittsburg, and the Chicagos at Indianapolis, the winning clubs being New York, Boston, Pittsburg and Chicago. By the end of the first week of the campaign, Boston was in the van without a defeat being charged to them, while every other club had suffered at least one defeat, Boston leading in the race, followed by Chicago, New York, Pittsburg, Detroit, Indianapolis, Washington and Philadelphia, the latter suffering from the great drawback of the death of their best player Ferguson, a loss which handicapped them all through the season. By the end of the first week in May the contest had assumed quite an interesting phase in one respect, and that was the remarkable success of the Boston team, which, up to May 2 had won every championship game they had played, the record on May 4 leaving them in the van. By May 5, however, Chicago pulled up even with them, the two teams standing with a record of 11 victories and 2 defeats each, and a percentage of .862 at the close of the third week of the spring campaign. In the meantime Philadelphia had rallied and had pulled up to seventh place, and Detroit had overhauled Pittsburg, Indianapolis falling into the last ditch. By the end of May quite a change had been made in the relative position of the eight clubs, Chicago having gone to the front and Boston to second position, while Detroit had moved up to third place, and New York had fallen back to fourth; while Philadelphia had worked up well and had got into fifth position, Pittsburg having made a bad tumble to sixth place, leaving Indianapolis and Washington to bring up the rear.

The month of June saw more changes in the positions of all of the eight clubs except Chicago and Philadelphia, the former having tenaciously held on to first place since the last week in April; while Philadelphia steadily remained a good fifth. Boston, however, fell off badly in the running, the second week in June seeing, them down to fourth place; while by June 9 Detroit had got into second place, and was running Chicago a close race. During the last of May New York had got down to fourth position; but in the first week of June they had rallied and resumed third place; but the next week saw them fall back again, while Boston rallied back to third position. By the end of June the eight clubs occupied the following relative positions in the race Chicago held the lead, with Detroit second, Boston third, New York fourth, Philadelphia fifth, Pittsburg sixth, with Indianapolis and Washington as the two tail enders.

July proved to be the most important month of the season's race, as it was in this month that the New York team as effectually rallied under the personal influence of Mr. John B. Day, who from that time out took personal cognizance of the doings of the "Giants." The first week in July saw the New York team drive Boston out of third place, while Pittsburg, for the time being, was forced to occupy seventh position, Indianapolis leading them for a week in July. During the last week in July, Chicago — which club had held the lead consecutively from May 5 to July 23—took a bad tumble, and fell back to third position, while New York and Detroit stood tied for a few days for first place, until Chicago rallied, and then the Detroits were driven back; the end of July leaving New York in the van, with Detroit second, Chicago third, Boston and Philadelphia close together in fourth and fifth positions, while Pittsburg, Indianapolis, and Washington occupied the rear positions. It was now that the race began to be intensely interesting. The steady play of the New York team gave a new feature to the contest, and it now began to be a nip and tuck fight between the "Giants" and the Chicagos for first place, with Detroit close to them as a good third. August saw the steadiest running of the season in the race, but few changes being made in the relative positions of the contestants, the last week of the month seeing New York in the van, Chicago second, Detroit third, Boston fourth, Philadelphia fifth, and Pittsburg, Washington and Indianapolis in the rear.

The promise for an exciting close of the campaign loomed up very bright in September, and during that month, while New York and Chicago still retained their leading positions, Boston temporarily rallied, and got into third place for a week; but Detroit pushed them back, while Philadelphia began to rally for a closing dash for one of the three leading positions. At the close of September the record left New York in the van, with the assurance of a successful termination of the campaign for the "Giants," while the struggle for second place between Chicago, Boston, Detroit and Philadelphia greatly added to the excitement of the closing month of the campaign. Chicago held on to second place, and Philadelphia, which club on September 29 stood in fifth place rallied brilliantly in October, and drove Boston to fourth place and Detroit to fifth, Boston having occupied fifth place on the 6th of October, Pittsburg, Indianapolis and Washington finally bringing up the rear.

A feature of the campaign was the fact that at no time after May was it doubtful in regard to the position of Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Washington as the three tail-enders of the race. But for this the campaign would have been the most brilliant on record. As it was, however, the contest for the three leading positions by the other five clubs made it exceedingly interesting throughout, New York's final success giving a new impetus to the succeeding campaign of 1889.

THE STATISTICS OF THE CAMPAIGN.

During the League championship season of 1888 an aggregate of 552 games were played, of which 530 were victories and defeats; and 22 were drawn games, and two were won by forfeit. Of the 552 games played and won, no less than 432 were won by single figure scores, and but 98 by double figures. A noteworthy feature of the campaign was, that while the New York Club won the championship by 84 victories to Chicago's 77, with but 47 defeats to Chicago's 58, they failed to score as many runs in the aggregate as the Chicago Club did by 659 to 725, the Chicago's majority of runs being 66. The New York Club's score of runs, in fact, was exceeded by Detroit, Boston, and even Indianapolis, the latter's aggregate of runs being 666.

Below will be found a complete summary of the statistics of the League campaign of 1888:

| | | P | | | | I |
| | | h | | | | n |
| | | i | | | | d | W
| | | l | | | P | i | a
| N | | a | | | i | a | s
| e | C | d | | D | t | n | h
| w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i
| | i | l | o | t | s | p | n
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g
| o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t
| r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o
| k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | .
————————————+——+——+——+——+——+——+——+—
Victories | 84| 77| 69| 70| 68| 66| 50| 48
Defeats | 47| 58| 61| 64| 63| 68| 85| 86
Drawn Games | 7| 1| 1| 3| 3| 4| 1| 2
Total Games Played | 138| 135| 131| 137| 134| 138| 136| 136
Won by Forfeit | 1| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0
Lost by Forfeit | 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0
Per Cent. of Victories |.641|.570|.532|.522|.519|.493|.370|.358
Series Won | 5| 4| 2| 2| 3| 2| 1| 0
Series Lost | 1| 1| 2| 2| 1| 1| 6| 5
Series Tied | 0| 1| 0| 0| 2| 1| 0| 0
Series Unfinished | 6| 4| 6| 4| 5| 3| 3| 5
Chicago Victories | 19| 13| 16| 7| 10| 13| 6| 6
Chicago Defeats | 3| 9| 7| 13| 5| 19| 11| 23
Home Victories | 44| 43| 37| 34| 41| 38| 31| 26
Home Defeats | 23| 26| 31| 29| 26| 30| 35| 38
Victories Abroad | 40| 34| 32| 36| 27| 28| 19| 22
Defeats Abroad | 24| 32| 30| 31| 37| 70| 50| 48
Extra Innings Victories | 2| 1| 8| 6| 3| 6| 3| 0
Extra Innings Defeats | 2| 1| 3| 8| 6| 0| 5| 4
Single Figure Victories | 70| 55| 62| 58| 50| 57| 37| 44
Single Figure Defeats | 44| 45| 55| 49| 51| 58| 67| 65
Double Figure Victories | 12| 22| 6| 12| 18| 9| 13| 4
Double Figure Defeats | 4| 12| 6| 15| 12| 10| 18| 21
Batting Average |.240|.247|.229|.240|.243|.223|.233|.207
Fielding Average |.918|.906|.919|.904|.916|.914|.904|.899
Highest Score in Games | 19| 21| 17| 20| 18| 14| 15| 22
Worst Defeat |4-11|0-14|1-14|0-13|2-12|1-16|0-13|0-14
Won by One Run | 21| 18| 28| 16| 10| 10| 13| 12
Lost by One Run | 12| 7| 16| 21| 19| 16| 28| 17
Total Runs Scored | 659| 725| 536| 669| 716| 531| 666| 482

The following is the record of the single figure victories scored in the
League championship arena in 1888:

SINGLE FIGURE| | | P | | | | I | ||
VICTORIES. | | | h | | | | n | ||
| | | i | | | | d | W ||
| | | l | | | P | i | a || V
| N | | a | | | i | a | s || i
| e | C | d | | D | t | n | h || c
| w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i || t
| | I | l | o | t | s | p | n || o
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g || r
| o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t || i
| r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o || e
| k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n || s
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || .
——————-+—-+—-+—-+——+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
New York | —| 12| 10|8[1]| 5| 11| 13| 11|| 70
Philadelphia | 4| —| 9| 5 | 8| 7| 9| 10|| 60
Boston | 8| 9| —| 9 | 5| 6| 12| 9|| 58
Pittsburg | 7| 6| 7| — | 8| 8| 8| 13|| 57

[**Proofreaders note: The data for the last two teams was not included**]

[Footnote 1: One victory scored by New York was from a forfeited game charged against the Pittsburg team as 9 to 0.]

The following is the record of the double figure victories scored by the eight League clubs in the championship arena in 1888:

DOUBLE FIGURE| | | | I | | | P | || VICTORIES. | | | | n | | | h | || | | | | d | | | i | W || | | | | i | | P | l | a || V | | | N | a | | i | a | s || i | C | D | e | n | | t | d | h || c | h | e | w | a | B | t | e | i || t | i | t | | p | o | s | l | n || o | c | r | Y | o | s | b | p | g || r | a | o | o | l | t | u | h | t || i | g | i | r | i | o | r | i | o || e | o | t | k | s | n | g | a | n || s | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || . ——————-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—— Chicago | —| 3| 0| 4| 4| 3| 1| 7|| 22 Detroit | 1| —| 2| 5| 2| 4| 2| 2|| 18 New York | 3| 0| —| 3| 2| 1| 2| 2|| 13 Indianapolis | 1| 2| 0| —| 5| 1| 0| 4|| 13 Boston | 2| 4| 0| 2| —| 1| 0| 3|| 12 Pittsburg | 3| 2| 0| 1| 1| —| 0| 2|| 9 Philadelphia | 1| 0| 1| 3| 1| 0| —| 1|| 7 Washington | 1| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1| —|| 4 ——————-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—— Defeats | 12| 12| 4| 18| 15| 10| 6| 21|| 89

The following table presents the figures of the series of games won and lost in the League championship arena in 1888. The letters "W" and "L" indicate games won and lost:

| | | P | | | | I | || |
| | | h | | | | n | ||S|S
| | | i | | | | d | W ||S|e|e
| | | l | | | P | i | a ||e|r|r
| N | | a | | | i | a | s ||r|i|i
| e | C | d | | D | t | n | h ||i|e|e
| w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i ||e|s|s
| | i | l | o | t | s | p | n ||s| |
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g || |L|T
| o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t ||W|o|i
| r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o ||o|s|e
| k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n ||n|t|d
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . ||.|.|.
——————+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-++-+-+-
| W| L| W| L| W| L| W| L| W| L| W| L| W| L| W| L|| | |
New York |—|—| 8|11|11| 7|10| 7|14| 5|12| 8|14| 5|15| 4||5|1|0
Chicago |11| 8|—|—|10|10| 9|11| 8|10|12| 7|14| 6|13| 6||4|1|1
Detroit | 7|11|10|10|—|—|10|10|11| 7| 8|10|11| 8|11| 7||3|1|2
Pittsburg | 7|10| 1| 9|10|10|—|—| 6|11| 8|10|14| 6|10| 9||2|1|1
Philadelphia| 5|14|10| 8| 7|11|14| 6|—|—|10| 9|13| 4|10| 9||2|2|0
Boston | 8|12| 7|13|10| 8|10| 8| 9|10|—|—|11| 9|15| 5||2|2|0
Indianapolis| 5|14| 6|14| 8|11| 6|14| 4|13| 9|11|—|—|12| 9||1|6|0
Washington | 4|15| 6|13| 7|11| 9|10| 9|10| 5|15| 8|12|—|—||0|5|0

THE "CHICAGO" GAMES OF 1888.

The record of the "Chicago" games—or games in which the defeated team did not score a single run—in the League championship series of 1888 is appended:

| | P | | | | | I | ||
| | h | | | | | n | ||
| | i | | | | | d | W ||
| | l | | P | | | i | a || V
| N | a | | i | | | a | s || i
| e | d | C | t | D | | n | h || c
| w | e | h | t | e | B | a | i || t
| | l | i | s | t | o | p | n || o
| Y | p | c | b | r | s | o | g || r
| o | h | a | u | o | t | l | t || i
| r | i | g | r | i | o | i | o || e
| k | a | o | g | t | n | s | n || s
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || .
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
New York | —| 1| 2| 4| 2| 1| 3| 6|| 19
Philadelphia| 0| —| 3| 6| 1| 4| 0| 2|| 16
Chicago | 1| 1| —| 3| 1| 2| 1| 4|| 13
Pittsburg | 1| 2| 1| —| 0| 2| 4| 3|| 13
Detroit | 0| 1| 2| 1| —| 2| 1| 3|| 10
Boston | 1| 0| 0| 3| 0| —| 1| 2|| 7
Indianapolis| 0| 0| 1| 0| 1| 1| —| 3|| 6
Washington | 0| 2| 0| 2| 0| 1| 1| —|| 6
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
Defeats | 3| 7| 9| 19| 5| 13| 11| 23|| 90

EXTRA INNINGS GAMES.

The record of the victories and defeats scored by the eight League Clubs in extra innings games in the championship series of 1888 was as follows:

The following is the record of the victories scored by the eight League Clubs on home grounds in the championship arena during 1888:

| | | P | | | | I | ||
| | | h | | | | n | ||
| | | i | | | | d | W ||
| | | l | | | P | i | a || G
| N | | a | | | i | a | s || a
| e | C | d | | D | t | n | h || m
| w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i || e
| | i | l | o | t | s | p | n || s
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g ||
| o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t || W
| r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o || o
| k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n || n
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . ||..
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
New York | —| 4| 8| 5| 6| 6| 7| 8|| 44
Chicago | 6| —| 4| 7| 5| 4| 9| 8|| 43
Philadelphia| 4| 4| —| 3| 5| 7| 9| 5|| 37
Boston | 3| 4| 1| —| 6| 6| 6| 8|| 34
Detroit | 4| 5| 8| 5| —| 7| 6| 6|| 41
Pittsburg | 3| 6| 2| 6| 7| —| 8| 6|| 38
Indianapolis| 3| 5| 3| 5| 4| 4| —| 7|| 31
Washington | 1| 4| 4| 3| 4| 5| 5| —|| 26
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
Games Lost | 24| 32| 30| 34| 37| 39| 50| 48||294

The record of victories on opponent's grounds is as follows:

| | | P | | | | I | ||
| | | h | | | | n | ||
| | | i | | | | d | W ||
| | | l | | | P | i | a || G
| N | | a | | | i | a | s || a
| e | C | d | | D | t | n | h || m
| w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i || e
| | i | l | o | t | s | p | n || s
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g ||
| o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t || W
| r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o || o
| k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n || n
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . ||..
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
New York | —| 4| 6| 7| 5| 4| 7| 7|| 40
Chicago | 5| —| 4| 5| 5| 5| 5| 5|| 34
Philadelphia| 1| 6| —| 6| 2| 8| 4| 5|| 32
Boston | 5| 3| 8| —| 4| 4| 5| 7|| 36
Detroit | 3| 5| 3| 3| —| 3| 5| 5|| 27
Pittsburg | 4| 5| 4| 2| 3| —| 6| 4|| 28
Indianapolis| 2| 1| 1| 4| 4| 2| —| 5|| 19
Washington | 3| 2| 5| 2| 3| 4| 3| —|| 22
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—-
Games Lost | 23| 26| 31| 29| 26| 30| 35| 38||238

[Illustration: JOHN B. DAY, NEW YORK]
[Illustration: F. K. STEARNS DETROIT]
[Illustration: A. G SPALDING, CHICAGO.]
[Illustration: F. DE H ROBINSON, CLEVELAND]
LEAGUE CLUB PRESIDENTS.

[Illustration: W. A. NIMICK, PITTSBURG.]
[Illustration: J. T. BRUSH, INDIANAPOLIS.]
[Illustration: WALTER F. HEWETT, WASHINGTON.]
[Illustration: A. J. REACH, PHILADELPHIA.]
LEAGUE CLUB PRESIDENTS.

THE LESSONS OF THE LEAGUE CAMPAIGN OF 1888.

Among the noteworthy results of the League championship campaign of 1888 meriting special comment as affording lessons to be profited by in the future, may be named, first, the success of the Eastern Club of New York, in winning the pennant from the West; secondly, that of the Chicago Club in attaining second place in the race in the face of drawbacks which, under any other management, would have sufficed to have left the Club among the tail-enders; and thirdly, the remarkable failure of the Boston Club to attain even one of the three leading positions in the race, after that club had incurred such a heavy expense in strengthening its team with "star" players. The success of the New York Club in winning the championship, introducing, as it did, a new possessor of the League pennant and its accompanying honors, may justly be regarded as an advantage to the general interests of the National League, inasmuch as it is anything but desirable that one club should, season after season, carry off the honors, as the old Boston Club did in the early history of the professional championship contest; or as the Chicago Club has done in monopolizing the championship of the National League during the past thirteen years of its history. Such monopoly of the honors of each season's campaign, by one or two of the leading clubs of each year, materially lessens the public interest taken in the annual competition. Besides which, it interferes, to a costly extent, with the financial prosperity of a majority of the competing clubs. Now that a club, new to championship honors, has replaced one of the monopolists, the other previously unsuccessful clubs will begin to entertain hopes of being able to "get in at the death," as the fox hunters say, in future pennant races, if not this ensuing year, and thereby a new interest will be imparted to coming campaigns.

A feature of the past campaign of 1888 worthy of remark, too, is the fact of the surprisingly good work on the field accomplished by the so-called "weakened Chicago team." While this work was unquestionably due in a great measure to able management, the assisting element of "temperance in the ranks" had much to do with it. It is equally unquestionable that the very reverse had a great deal to do with the lamentable failure of the Boston team to follow up the success with which that club's team opened the campaign. The contrast, these two clubs presented in this special respect calls for the most earnest consideration of the vital question of insisting upon temperate habits in all the club teams during the period of the championship season each year. The evil of drunkenness among the professional teams is one which has grown upon the fraternity until it has become too costly an abuse to be longer tolerated. Drunken professionals should be driven from service just as the crooks of a dozen years ago were, never to be allowed to return. Drunken players are not only a costly drawback to success individually, but they permeate the whole baseball fraternity with a demoralizing influence. The fact is, professional baseball playing has arrived at that point of excellence, and reached so advanced a position in regard to its financial possibilities, that it will no longer pay, in any solitary respect, to allow players of drinking habits in first-class teams. The demands of the game, as it is now played, are such as to require a player to have all his wits about him to play ball up to the standard it has now reached. He needs the steadiest of nerves, the clearest eyesight, the most unclouded judgment, and the healthiest physique to play the game as it is required to be done by the exacting public patrons of the present day. Another thing, the capitalists who have ventured thousands of dollars in baseball stock companies, can no longer allow their money to be risked in teams which are weakened by the presence of men of drinking habits. Mr. Spalding's plucky and most successful experiment has conclusively shown that a baseball team run on temperance principles can successfully compete with teams stronger in other respects, but which are weakened by the toleration of drinking habits in their ranks. Here is a lesson taught by the campaign of 1888 which points a moral, if it does not adorn a tale.

Another special lesson of the past campaign which was practically illustrated by the Boston Club was, that star players do not make a winning team. The fact is, the pennant cannot be won by any costly outlay in securing the services of this, that, or the other "greatest player in the country." It is well managed and harmonious teams, not picked nines led by special stars, which win in the long run. Now and then—as there are exceptions in all cases—a picked nine will attain a certain degree of success. But for steady struggles for permanent success in the professional championship arena, team work of the very best, and admirably managed teams will alone achieve steady victory. The old Boston teams under Harry Wright, and the Chicago teams under Anson, are a standing proof of this fact. Let the National League magnates ponder these truths earnestly.

THE LEAGUE PITCHING OF 1888.

While there is no more reliable a record, by which to estimate a pitcher's skill in the box, than the figures showing the runs clean earned off the pitching; in the absence of such figures the best criterion is that of the record of victories and defeats pitched in, the percentage of victories to games played being the deciding point in awarding the palm of superior work in the box. In 1888 the pitchers were handicapped by the absurd rule which charged runs scored on bases on balls as earned runs, successive bases on balls giving an earned run to the batting side, even in the absence of a single base hit. To estimate a pitcher's skill on such a basis is nonsense. As the scoring rules do not admit of the record of data showing runs clean earned off the pitching, and not off the fielding and pitching combined, we are obliged to make up a record of the percentage of victories as the only reliable figures at command on which to judge the pitching of the season. By and by the Committee of Conference will get out of the old rut in this respect, and then correct data will be available; until then we must do the best we can under the circumstances, and consequently the names of the pitchers of the League Clubs who took part in not less than ten games are appended, and these are placed in the order of the best percentage of victories.

| | | | | | P | | | | | | e | | | | | | r | | | | | | c | | | | | P | e | | | | | l | n | | | | L | a | t | | | W | o | y | a | | | o | s | e | g | | | n | t | d | e |PITCHERS. |CLUB. | . | . | . | . —+—————-+——————+—-+—-+—-+——- 1|Keefe |New York | 35| 12| 47| .745 2|Conway |Detroit | 31| 14| 15| .689 3|Buffinton |Philadelphia| 29| 15| 44| .659 4|Sanders |Philadelphia| 19| 10| 29| .655 5|Krock |Chicago | 25| 14| 39| .641 6|Titcomb |New York | 14| 8| 22| .636 7|Clarkson |Boston | 33| 20| 53| .623 8|Tener |Chicago | 7| 5| 12| .583 9|Welch |New York | 26| 19| 45| .577 10|Sowders |Boston | 19| 15| 34| .559 11|Morris |Pittsburg | 29| 24| 53| .547 12|Van Haltren|Chicago | 13| 11| 24| .542 13|Staley |Pittsburg | 12| 12| 24| .500 14|Burdick |Indianapolis| 10| 10| 20| .500 15|Galvin |Pittsburg | 23| 25| 48| .479 16|Whitney |Washington | 19| 21| 40| .475 17|Baldwin |Chicago | 13| 15| 28| .464 18|Gruber |Detroit | 11| 13| 24| .458 19|Crane |New York | 5| 6| 11| .455 20|Casey |Philadelphia| 14| 19| 33| .424 21|Beatin |Detroit | 5| 7| 12| .417 22|Getzein |Detroit | 18| 26| 44| .409 23|Boyle |Indianapolis| 15| 22| 37| .405 24|Madden |Boston | 7| 12| 19| .368 25|Widner |Washington | 4| 7| 11| .364 26|O'Day |Washington | 16| 31| 47| .340 27|Shreve |Indianapolis| 11| 24| 35| .314 28|Radbourne |Boston | 7| 16| 23| .304 29|Gleason |Philadelphia| 7| 17| 24| .292

Some remarkable pitching was done during the season of 1888, alike in the American arena, as in the League. The strategic work was up to a very high mark in the League, and in this, Keefe, Conway, Buffinton, Clarkson, Welch, Galvin, and Morris bore off the palm, while in speed alone, Crane of New York excelled.

The detailed record of victories and defeats pitched in during the championship campaign of 1888 by those who pitched in at least five victories, is as follows. The names are given in the order of most victories and fewest defeats:

VICTORIES.

| | | P | | | | I | || | | | h | | | | n | || | | | i | | | | d | W || | | | l | | | P | i | a || V | N | | a | | | I | a | s || i | e | C | d | | D | t | n | h || c | w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i || t | | i | l | o | t | s | p | n || o | Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g || r | o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t || i | r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o || e | k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n || s | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || . —————-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—- Keefe | —| 3| 5| 5| 5| 3| 8| 6|| 35 Clarkson | 5| —| 5| —| 6| 1| 5| 6|| 33 Conway | 5| 5| 5| 2| —| 5| 6| 3|| 31 Buffinton | 3| 4| —| 5| 2| 7| 5| 3|| 29 Morris | 6| 3| 4| 6| 3| —| 4| 3|| 29 Welch | —| 3| 5| 6| 1| 4| 3| 4|| 26 Krock | 5| —| 2| 3| 4| 3| 4| 4|| 25 Sanders | 0| 3| —| 3| 1| 3| 5| 4|| 19 Sowders | 3| 1| 2| —| 2| 4| 2| 5|| 19 Whitney | 3| 3| 4| 3| 1| 3| 2| —|| 19 Getzein | 0| 4| 4| 2| —| 2| 3| 3|| 18 O'Day | 1| 2| 3| 2| 3| 3| 2| —|| 16 Boyle | 2| 1| 2| 4| 2| 1| —| 3|| 15 Titcomb | —| 1| 2| 1| 3| 2| 1| 4|| 14 Casey | 1| 2| —| 2| 4| 2| 2| 1|| 14 Van Haltren| 0| —| 2| 1| 2| 2| 2| 4|| 13 Baldwin | 3| —| 1| 3| 2| 2| 2| 0|| 13 Staley | 0| 2| 0| 1| 1| —| 6| 3|| 12 Gruber | 2| 1| 1| 3| —| 1| 2| 1|| 11 Shreve | 2| 1| 0| 3| 3| 1| —| 1|| 11 Burdick | 1| 3| 0| 1| 1| 3| —| 1|| 10 Tener | 2| —| 0| 2| 1| 0| 1| 1|| 7 Madden | 0| 0| 2| —| 0| 3| 1| 1|| 7 Radbourne | 0| 1| 0| —| 2| 1| 0| 3|| 7 Gleason | 1| 0| —| 0| 0| 3| 1| 2|| 7 Crane | —| 1| 2| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1|| 5 Beatin | 0| 0| 0| 1| —| 1| 0| 3|| 5

DEFEATS | | | P | | | | I | || | | | h | | | | n | || | | | i | | | | d | W || | | | l | | | P | i | a || | N | | a | | | I | a | s || | e | C | d | | D | t | n | h || | w | h | e | B | e | t | a | i || D | | i | l | o | t | s | p | n || e | Y | c | p | s | r | b | o | g || f | o | a | h | t | o | u | l | t || e | r | g | i | o | i | r | i | o || a | k | o | a | n | t | g | s | n || s | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || . —————-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—- Tener | 1| —| 2| 0| 0| 0| 1| 1|| 5 Crane | —| 0| 0| 0| 1| 1| 2| 2|| 6 Beatin | 1| 2| 1| 2| —| 0| 1| 0|| 7 Titcomb | —| 1| 0| 1| 3| 2| 0| 1|| 8 Sanders | 3| 2| —| 2| 1| 1| 0| 1|| 10 Burdick | 1| 1| 3| 1| 1| 0| —| 3|| 10 Van Haltren| 2| —| 1| 2| 3| 2| 1| 0|| 11 Keefe | —| 4| 1| 4| 0| 1| 2| 0|| 12 Staley | 2| 1| 2| 2| 3| —| 1| 1|| 12 Madden | 3| 2| 2| —| 2| 2| 1| 0|| 12 Gruber | 3| 1| 2| 2| —| 0| 2| 3|| 13 Conway | 2| 2| 1| 2| —| 3| 1| 3|| 14 Krock | 2| —| 2| 3| 2| 3| 1| 1|| 14 Buffinton | 4| 2| —| 3| 2| 2| 1| 1|| 15 Sowders | 3| 2| 4| —| 2| 2| 2| 0|| 15 Baldwin | 1| —| 1| 1| 4| 4| 2| 2|| 15 Radbourne | 2| 5| 0| —| 2| 2| 2| 3|| 16 Gleason | 2| 3| —| 3| 3| 1| 0| 5|| 17 Welch | —| 6| 4| 3| 2| 2| 1| 1|| 19 Casey | 5| 1| —| 1| 5| 2| 3| 2|| 19 Clarkson | 4| 3| 4| —| 2| 2| 3| 2|| 20 Whitney | 4| 1| 2| 5| 2| 4| 3| —|| 21 Boyle | 5| 5| 3| 3| 1| 5| —| 0|| 22 Morris | 3| 4| 4| 2| 3| —| 2| 6|| 24 Shreve | 4| 4| 4| 2| 5| 3| —| 2|| 24 Galvin | 4| 3| 7| 5| 3| —| 1| 2|| 25 Getzein | 5| 3| 3| 4| —| 7| 3| 1|| 26 O'Day | 4| 5| 4| 5| 3| 3| 7| —|| 31

These pitching records not only present a tolerably fair criterion of a pitcher's skill in the box—though of course not as reliable as the data of clean earned runs off his pitching or of clean hits made from it—but they afford an interesting and instructive record from which to judge of the success of a pitcher in defeating one particular team more frequently than he does another, and vice versa. In fact, experience has shown that no matter how effective a pitcher may be in a season's work, it will be found that there is always one team which bothers him more than any other he has to face, just as shown in the above quoted instances.

In regard to judging of a pitcher's ability as a fielder in his position by the fielding averages of pitchers the basis was made equally as unreliable as the estimate of earned runs was, owing to the fact that the data of the fielding averages of a pitcher were made up from the figures of "assistance on strikes" as well as from legitimate fielding assistances. For this reason the pitcher, who was really a poor fielder in his position in fielding balls from the bat, but who happened to be fortunate in striking batsmen out by his pitching—thereby getting a big record of pitching assistances—became the leader in the pitcher's fielding averages; while the pitcher who really excelled as a fielder when in the box, but who was not as fortunate in striking out his batting opponents, and therefore could not furnish as good a record of assistances on strikes, was set down in the fielding averages as a tail-ender.

The individual club record of the pitching of 1888 presents some interesting figures. For instance, we find that while Chicago used no less than eleven pitchers during the championship season Philadelphia was content with but four. No less than twenty new pitchers entered the League season in 1888, and of these, Sanders of Philadelphia; Tener and Krock of Chicago; Sowders of Boston; Staley of Pittsburgh; Burdick of Indianapolis, and Widner of Washington, proved to be acquisitions.

Below will be found the individual club pitching records for 1888, showing the victories and defeats each club pitcher participated in as an occupant of the box. The names given in italics are those of pitchers new to the League arena:

EASTERN CLUBS.

NEW YORK.
| | P | | | | I | ||
| | h | | | | n | ||
| | i | | | | d | W ||
| | l | | | P | i | a ||
| | a | | | i | a | s ||
| C | d | | D | t | n | h ||
| h | e | B | e | t | a | i ||
| I | l | o | t | s | p | n ||
| c | p | s | r | b | o | g ||
| a | h | t | o | u | l | t ||
| g | i | o | i | r | i | o ||
| o | a | n | t | g | s | n ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
————+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
————+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Keefe | 3| 4| 5| 2| 5| 4| 5| 0| 3| 1| 8| 2| 6| 0||35|12| 47
Welch | 3| 6| 5| 4| 6| 3| 1| 2| 4| 2| 3| 1| 4| 1||25|19| 45
Titcomb | 1| 1| 2| 0| 1| 1| 3| 3| 2| 2| 1| 0| 4| 1||14| 8| 22
Crane | 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 1| 0| 2| 1| 2|| 5| 6| 11
George | 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0|| 2| 1| 3
Weidman | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0|| 1| 1| 2
————+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Totals | 8|11|14| 5|12| 8|11| 7| 9| 7|14| 5|15| 4||83|47|130
| | | | | | | | |[1]
[Footnote 1: One game with Pittsburg was won by forfeit.]

CHICAGO. | | P | | | | I | || | | h | | | | n | || | | i | | | | d | W || | | l | | | P | i | a || | N | a | | | i | a | s || | e | d | | D | t | n | h || | w | e | B | e | t | a | i || | | l | o | t | s | p | n || | Y | p | s | r | b | o | g || | o | h | t | o | u | l | t || | r | i | o | i | r | i | o || | k | a | n | t | g | s | n || | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals. —————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—- |W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P. —————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—- Krock | 5| 2| 2| 2| 3| 3| 4| 2| 3| 3| 4| 1| 4| 1||25|14|39 Van Haltren| 0| 2| 2| 1| 1| 2| 2| 3| 2| 2| 2| 1| 4| 0||13|11|24 Baldwin | 3| 1| 1| 1| 3| 1| 2| 4| 2| 4| 2| 2| 0| 2||13|15|28 Tener | 2| 1| 0| 2| 2| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1| 1| 1| 1|| 7| 5|12 Dwyer | 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 2| 0|| 4| 1| 5 Borchers | 0| 0| 1| 1| 1| 0| 0| 1| 1| 2| 1| 0| 0| 1|| 4| 5| 9 Ryan | 1| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|| 3| 1| 4 Gumpert | 0| 1| 0| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 2| 0|| 3| 3| 6 Clark | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0|| 2|| 0| 2 Bryman | 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1|| 2| 1| 3 Mains | 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0|| 1| 1| 2 —————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—- Totals |11| 8| 8| 9|12| 7|10|10| 9|11|14| 6|13| 6||77|57|134 | | | |[1]

[Footnote 1: One defeat with the Philadelphia Club was by forfeit.]

DETROIT.
| | | P | | | I | ||
| | | h | | | n | ||
| | | i | | | d | W ||
| | | l | | P | i | a ||
| N | | a | | i | a | s ||
| e | C | d | | t | n | h ||
| w | h | e | B | t | a | i ||
| | i | l | o | s | p | n ||
| Y | c | p | s | b | o | g ||
| o | a | h | t | u | l | t ||
| r | g | i | o | r | i | o ||
| k | o | a | n | g | s | n ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
———-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
———-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Conway | 5| 2| 5| 2| 5| 1| 2| 2| 5| 3| 6| 1| 3| 3||31|14| 45
Getzein| 0| 5| 4| 3| 4| 3| 2| 4| 2| 7| 3| 3| 3| 1||18|26| 44
Gruber | 2| 3| 1| 1| 1| 2| 3| 2| 1| 0| 2| 3| 1| 3|| 1|13| 24
Beatin | 0| 1| 0| 2| 0| 1| 1| 2| 1| 0| 0| 1| 3| 0|| 5| 7| 12
Baldwin| 0| 0| 0| 2| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0|| 3| 3| 6
———-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Totals | 7|11|10|10|11| 7| 8|10|10|10|11| 8|11| 7||68|63|131

PHILADELPHIA.
| | | | | | I | ||
| | | | | | n | ||
| | | | | | d | W ||
| | | | | P | i | a ||
| N | | | | i | a | s ||
| e | C | | D | t | n | h ||
| w | h | B | e | t | a | i ||
| | i | o | t | s | p | n ||
| Y | c | s | r | b | o | g ||
| o | a | t | o | u | l | t ||
| r | g | o | i | r | i | o ||
| k | o | n | t | g | s | n ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|P.
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Buffinton| 3| 4| 4| 2| 5| 3| 2| 2| 7| 2| 5| 1| 3| 1||29|15| 44
Sanders| 0| 3| 3| 2| 3| 2| 1| 1| 3| 1| 5| 0| 4| 1||19|10| 29
Casey | 1| 5| 2| 1| 2| 1| 4| 5| 2| 2| 2| 3| 1| 2||14|19| 33
Gleason| 1| 2| 0| 3| 0| 3| 0| 3| 3| 1| 1| 0| 2| 5|| 7|17| 24
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Totals | 4|14| 9| 8|10| 9| 7|11|15| 6|13| 4|10| 9||69|71|130
| | |[1] | | | | |[2]

[Footnote 1: One game with Chicago was won by forfeit.]
[Footnote 2: One game with Pittsburg thrown out.]

BOSTON.
| | | P | | | I | ||
| | | h | | | n | ||
| | | i | | | d | W ||
| | | l | | P | i | a ||
| N | | a | | i | a | s ||
| e | C | d | D | t | n | h ||
| w | h | e | e | t | a | i ||
| | i | l | t | s | p | n ||
| Y | c | p | r | b | o | g ||
| o | a | h | o | u | l | t ||
| r | g | i | i | r | i | o ||
| k | o | a | t | g | s | n ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Clarkson | 5| 4| 5| 3| 5| 4| 6| 2| 1| 2| 5| 3| 6| 2||33|20| 53
Sowders| 3| 3| 1| 2| 2| 4| 2| 2| 4| 2| 2| 2| 5| 0||19|15| 34
Madden | 0| 3| 0| 2| 2| 2| 0| 2| 3| 2| 1| 1| 1| 0|| 7|12| 19
Radbourne| 0| 2| 1| 5| 0| 0| 2| 2| 1| 2| 0| 2| 3| 3|| 7|16| 23
Conway | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 3| 1| 0| 0|| 4| 1| 5
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Totals | 8|12| 7|10| 9|10|10| 8|10| 8|11| 9|15| 5||70|64|134

INDIANAPOLIS.
| | | P | | | | ||
| | | h | | | | ||
| | | i | | | | W ||
| | | l | | | P | a ||
| N | | a | | | i | s ||
| e | C | d | | D | t | h ||
| w | h | e | B | e | t | i ||
| | i | l | o | t | s | n ||
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | g ||
| o | a | h | t | o | u | t ||
| r | g | i | o | i | r | o ||
| k | o | a | n | t | g | n ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Boyle | 2| 5| 1| 5| 2| 3| 4| 3| 2| 1| 1| 5| 3| 0||15|22| 37
Healy | 0| 3| 1| 4| 2| 2| 1| 3| 2| 3| 1| 6| 5| 3||12|24| 36
Shreve | 2| 4| 1| 4| 0| 4| 3| 2| 3| 5| 1| 3| 1| 2||11|24| 35
Burdick| 1| 1| 3| 1| 0| 3| 1| 1| 1| 1| 3| 0| 1| 3||10|10| 20
Moffat | 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 2| 0| 1| 0| 0| 2| 0|| 2| 5| 7
————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Totals | 5|14| 6|14| 4|13| 9|11| 8|11| 6|14|12| 8||50|85|135

WASHINGTON.
| | | P | | | | I ||
| | | h | | | | n ||
| | | i | | | | d ||
| | | l | | | P | i ||
| N | | a | | | i | a ||
| e | C | d | | D | t | n ||
| w | h | e | B | e | t | a ||
| | i | l | o | t | s | p ||
| Y | c | p | s | r | b | o ||
| o | a | h | t | o | u | l ||
| r | g | i | o | i | r | i ||
| k | o | a | n | t | g | s ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
—————+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
—————+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Whitney | 3| 4| 3| 1| 4| 2| 3| 5| 1| 2| 3| 4| 2| 3||18|21| 40
O'Day | 1| 4| 2| 5| 3| 4| 2| 5| 3| 3| 3| 3| 2| 7||16|31| 47
Keefe | 0| 2| 0| 2| 0| 1| 0| 1| 2| 1| 2| 0| 2| 0|| 6| 7| 13
Widner | 0| 1| 0| 2| 1| 2| 0| 2| 1| 0| 1| 0| 1| 0|| 4| 7| 11
Daily | 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 2| 0| 0| 1| 0|| 2| 4| 6
Gilmore | 0| 3| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 1| 0| 2| 0| 2| 0| 1|| 1|10| 11
Greening| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|| 0| 1| 1
Haddock | 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0|| 0| 2| 2
Shaw | 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 1|| 0| 3| 3
—————+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+—-
Totals | 4|15| 6|13| 9|10| 5|15| 7|11| 9|10| 8|12||48|86|134

PITTSBURG.
| | | P | | | I | ||
| | | h | | | n | ||
| | | i | | | d | W ||
| | | l | | | i | a ||
| N | | a | | | a | s ||
| e | C | d | | D | n | h ||
| w | h | e | B | e | a | i ||
| | i | l | o | t | p | n ||
| Y | c | p | s | r | o | g ||
| o | a | h | t | o | l | t ||
| r | g | i | o | i | i | o ||
| k | o | a | n | t | s | n ||
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || Totals.
—————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+——-++-+—+—-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
—————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+——-++-+—+—-
Morris | 6| 3| 3| 4| 4| 4| 6| 2| 3| 3| 4| 2| 3| 6||29|24| 53
Galvin | 1| 4| 5| 3| 2| 7| 1| 5| 6| 3| 5| 1| 3| 2||23|25| 48
Staley | 0| 2| 2| 1| 0| 2| 1| 2| 1| 3| 5| 1| 3| 1||12|12| 24
Knell | 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0|| 1| 2| 3
Henderson| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 0| 1| 0| 1| 0| 1| 0| 0|| 1| 4| 5
Maul | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|| 0| 1| 1
—————-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+——-++-+—+—-
Totals | 7| 9|11| 9| 6|15| 8|10|10|10|14| 6|10| 9||66|68|134
|[1] | | | |[1]

[Footnote 1: One game with New York was forfeited, and one defeat with
Philadelphia was thrown out.]

The retiring pitchers of the year were McCormick of Pittsburgh, Ferguson
of Philadelphia, who died early in the season; Weidman and Twitchell of
Detroit; Shaw of Washington; Mattimore of New York; Pyle and Sprague of
Chicago; Leitner, Morrison and Kirby of Indianapolis, and Stemmyer of
Boston

THE MONTHLY RECORDS.

The month of April saw Boston taking the lead in the record of victories for that month, that club not sustaining a single defeat in April. Chicago stood second, with New York and Pittsburgh tied in the number of victories and defeats credited and charged to each club, Detroit standing fifth, while Indianapolis, Philadelphia and Washington brought up the rear.

In May Chicago led all the other teams in their victories that month; Detroit being second, Philadelphia third, New York fourth, and Boston fifth, Indianapolis being sixth, with Pittsburgh and Washington tied for last place in the May record, Boston and Pittsburgh falling off badly this month.

In June Detroit won the most victories, it being their best month's work of the season, Chicago being second, Philadelphia third, New York fourth, Boston fifth, Washington sixth, with Indianapolis seventh and Pittsburgh last, it being the latter club's poorest month's work of the campaign.

In July the new rule of management, inaugurated by Mr. Day, placed New York in the front, and the result was that the "Giants" in July made the best month's record of the season, over 18 victories to but five defeats; Detroit stood second on the list in July victories, with Pittsburgh third, the latter making a good rally in July; Indianapolis, too, played well this month and stood fourth, Washington being fifth, and Chicago sixth, the latter taking a bad tumble, Philadelphia and Boston being the two last in July victories, Boston winning but five victories out of twenty-two games, that club's worst monthly record.

In August Boston rallied in brilliant style, scoring 16 victories out of 22 games, quite a contrast to their poor work in July; New York was second, and Pittsburgh third, the latter doing better, even, than in July; Philadelphia stood fourth, Chicago fifth, Washington sixth, with Indianapolis seventh and Detroit last, the latter only winning five victories out of 21 games in August.

In September Chicago rallied well and went to the front in the record of the month's victories, Pittsburgh being second, New York third, Detroit fourth—the latter rallying; Philadelphia sixth, with Indianapolis and Washington bringing up the rear. By the close of the month New York had virtually settled the question of the championship, and the only struggle left was that for second place.

In October Philadelphia made its usual "spurt" at the finish, and that club won eight out of nine games in October, after giving Chicago a close fight for second place, and came in a good third in the pennant race. New York was second in the October victories, Boston third, Pittsburgh and Washington tied for fourth, Chicago was sixth—that club gaining second position in the pennant race; Indianapolis and Washington being the two last. Here is the full record of the monthly victories and defeats of the campaign:

|April| May | June| July| Aug.|Sept.| Oct.||Totals.
——————+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-++————-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|P.
New York | 5| 3|12| 9|13|11|18| 5|16| 8|13| 8| 7| 3||84|47|131
Chicago | 6| 2|15| 7|14| 8|10|14|12|13|16| 9| 4| 5||77|58|135
Philadelphia| 2| 7|12| 7|13|10| 9|15|15| 9|10|12| 8| 1||69|61|130
Boston | 9| 0|11|13|12|11| 5|17|16| 6|12|12| 5| 5||70|64|134
Detroit | 3| 5|14| 8|16| 6|14|10| 5|16|13|11| 3| 7||68|63|131
Pittsburg | 5| 3| 7|14| 5|15|13| 9|16| 9|15|12| 5| 6||66|68|134
Indianapolis| 2| 6| 8|14| 7|14|13|11| 6|21|10|13| 4| 6||50|85|135
Washington | 1| 7| 7|14| 9|14|11|12|10|14| 5|19| 5| 6||48|86|134

[Illustration: A. C. Anson. ]

THE LEADING PLAYERS OF THE LEAGUE.

Looking over the League averages, and taking those players who have taken part in a majority of the championship contests of the season, we find the appended names among those occupying the leading positions at the bat and in the field.

Of those who played in one hundred games and over in the League championship arena, the following comprise the first ten batsmen:

|BATSMEN. |CLUB. |Games.|Per cent. of
| | | |Base Hits.
—+————-+————+———+————-
1|Anson |Chicago | 134 | .343
2|Ryan |Chicago | 130 | .331
3|Kelly |Boston | 105 | .318
4|Brouthers|Detroit | 129 | .306
5|Ewing |New York| 103 | .306
6|White |Detroit | 125 | .298
7|Johnston |Boston | 135 | .295
8|Tiernan |New York| 113 | .293
9|Connor |New York| 134 | .291
10|Nash |Boston | 135 | .283

Of those who played in one hundred games and over in the League campaign, the following are the first seven in fielding averages:

Of the pitchers who took part in 50 games and over, the following led in fielding averages:

No pitcher or catcher played in 100 games.

PITCHERS.|CLUB. |Games.|Fielding|Per cent.
| | |Average.| of
| | | |Base Hits.
————-+————-+———+————+—————
Keefe |New York | 51 | .785 | .127
Galvin |Pittsburg| 50 | .758 | .143
Morris |Pittsburg| 54 | .732 | .102
Clarkson |Boston | 54 | .678 | .195

Of the catchers who took part in 60 games and over, the following led in fielding averages:

CATCHERS.|CLUB. |Games.|Fielding|Per cent.
| | |Average.| of
| | | |Base Hits.
————-+——————+———+————+—————
Bennett |Detroit | 72 | .941 | .263
Daly |Chicago | 62 | .880 | .191
Clements |Philadelphia| 84 | .874 | .247
Ewing |New York | 78 | .861 | .306
Mack |Washington | 79 | .843 | .186
Miller |Pittsburg | 68 | .805 | .277
Kelly |Boston | 74 | .796 | .318

THE BASE RUNNING RECORD.

Those of the League championship players who are credited with not less than 50 stolen bases in the pennant race, are as follows:

The above are the leaders in seven of the eight League clubs. Hanlon led in the Detroit team, but he only scored 38 stolen bases in 108 games. The Detroit team was singularly weak in this respect.

Mr. R.M. Larner of Washington has made up an interesting table from the figures of the League averages, which presents some very interesting statistics of the base running in the League during the championship season of 1888. Mr. Larner says:

"The official averages of League players contain the number of bases stolen by each player during the season, but furnish no means of comparison between the clubs in that most important department of the game. A glance, however, shows that the three tail-end clubs possess the three most successful base-runners in the League, in Hoy of the Washingtons, Seery of Indianapolis, and Sunday of Pittsburgh, the latter of whom would probably have finished first had an accident not prevented him from playing during the last two weeks of the season."

The following table includes in its first column all those methods of reaching first base, except the force-outs, which cannot be ascertained, and would not materially affect the record, in this comparison. Indianapolis and Washington still lead, Pittsburgh comes well to the front, pushing the next three clubs down a peg each, and the Phillies and Detroits keep their places at the foot:

CLUBS. |Reached 1st Base.|Stolen Bases.|Percentages.
——————+————————-+——————-+—————-
Indianapolis| 1,589 | 350 | .220
Washington | 1,515 | 331 | .218
Pittsburg | 1,474 | 282 | .191
New York | 1,772 | 315 | .178
Boston | 1,719 | 292 | .170
Chicago | 1,720 | 285 | .166
Philadelphia| 1,569 | 246 | .157
Detroit | 1,843 | 193 | .105

Mr. Larner says. "The simple total of bases stolen is misleading as to a club's proficiency in base running, since the strong batting clubs having more men who reach first base have more chances to steal, and hence excel in totals, while in percentages they fall below clubs which are weaker in batting. The true measure is the relation between the number of bases stolen and the number of chances offered for the attempt, which is the whole number of those who reach first base, whether on hits, balls, errors, hits by pitcher, illegal delivery, or force-outs."

THE CLUB RECORD OF STOLEN BASES.

The record in stolen bases in championship games, showing the first man of each club in base stealing for 1888 is appended.

WASHINGTON. ||PITTSBURG. | | |Stolen|| | | |Stolen |PLAYERS.|Games.|Bases.|| |PLAYERS.|Games.|Bases. -+————+———+———++-+————+———+———- 1|Hoy | 136 | 82 ||1|Sunday | 119 | 71 2|Wilmot | 119 | 46 ||2|Smith | 130 | 32 3|Donnelly| 117 | 44 ||3|Dunlap | 81 | 24 4|Daily | 110 | 44 ||4|Mider | 103 | 27 5|Mack | 85 | 31 ||5|Beckley | 71 | 20 6|Schock | 90 | 23 ||6|Carroll | 96 | 18 7|Myers | 132 | 20 ||7|Kuehne | 137 | 17 8|Irwin | 37 | 15 ||8|Coleman | 115 | 15 9|O'Brien | 133 | 10 ||9|Fields | 44 | 9 -+————+———+———++-+————+———+———- Total | 315 ||Total | 228

NEW YORK. || PHILADELPHIA. | | |Stolen|| | | |Stolen |PLAYERS. |Games.|Bases.|| |PLAYERS. |Games.|Bases. -+—————+———+———++-+———-=-+———+———- 1|Ewing | 105 | 53 ||1|Fogart | 120 | 58 2|Tiernan | 113 | 52 ||2|Delahanty| 74 | 38 3|Ward | 122 | 38 ||3|Andrews | 123 | 35 4|Richardson| 135 | 35 ||4|Farrar | 130 | 21 5|Connor | 134 | 27 ||5|Wood | 105 | 20 6|Slattery | 103 | 26 ||6|Irwin | 124 | 19 7|O'Rourke | 107 | 25 ||7|Mulvey | 99 | 18 8|Gore | 64 | 9 ||8|Sanders | 57 | 13 9|Whitney | 90 | 8 ||9|Bastian | 80 | 12 -+—————+———+———++-+————-+———+———- Total | 280 ||Total | 234

Taking the total bases stolen by each club nine as the criterion, Indianapolis takes the lead, with Washington second and New York third, followed by Chicago, Boston, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Detroit in regular order, the latter club being the weakest of the eight League teams in base running. Here is the record in full:

INDIANAPOLIS. || BOSTON. | | |Stolen|| | | |Stolen |PLAYERS. |Games.|Bases.|| |PLAYERS. |Games.|Bases. -+—————+———+———++-+————-+———+———- 1|Seery | 133 | 80 ||1|Kelly | 105 | 56 2|McGeachy | 118 | 49 ||2|Brown | 107 | 46 3|Glasscock | 112 | 48 ||3|Johnston | 135 | 35 4|Denny | 126 | 32 ||4|Wise | 104 | 33 5|Hines | 132 | 31 ||5|Hornung | 107 | 29 6|Myers | 66 | 28 ||6|Morrill | 134 | 21 7|Bossett | 128 | 24 ||7|Nash | 135 | 20 8|Daily | 57 | 15 ||8|Quinn | 38 | 12 9|Esterbrook| 64 | 11 ||9|Sutton | 28 | 10 -+—————+———+———++-+————-+———+———- Total | 318 ||Total | 263

CHICAGO. || DETROIT. | | |Stolen|| | | |Stolen |PLAYERS. |Games.|Bases.|| |PLAYERS. |Games.|Bases. -+—————-+———+———++-+—————+———+———- 1|Pfeffer | 136 | 64 ||1|Hanlon | 108 | 38 2|Ryan | 130 | 60 ||2|Brouthers | 129 | 34 3|Burns | 134 | 34 ||3|Campau | 70 | 27 4|Anson | 134 | 28 ||4|Twitchell | 130 | 14 5|Williamson | 132 | 25 ||5|Richardson| 57 | 13 6|Van Haltren| 81 | 21 ||6|White | 125 | 12 7|Duffy | 71 | 13 ||7|Ganzell | 93 | 12 8|Daly | 65 | 10 ||8|Rowe | 105 | 10 9|Sullivan | 75 | 9 ||9|Getzein | 45 | 6 -+—————-+———+———++-+—————+———+———- Total | 264 ||Total | 166

The following table is for immediate reference. It shows the winning club for each season from 1871 to 1888 inclusive; as also the manager of each of the champion clubs of each year:

Year.|WINNING CLUB.|MANAGER. |Victories.|Defeats.|Games | | | | |Played. ——-+——————-+————-+—————+————+———- 1871 |Athletic |Hayhurst | 22 | 7 | 29 1872 |Boston |H. Wright| 39 | 8 | 47 1873 |Boston |H. Wright| 43 | 16 | 59 1874 |Boston |H. Wright| 52 | 18 | 70 1875 |Boston |H. Wright| 71 | 8 | 79 1876 |Chicago |Spalding | 52 | 14 | 66 1877 |Boston |H. Wright| 31 | 17 | 48 1878 |Boston |H. Wright| 41 | 19 | 60 1879 |Providence |G. Wright| 55 | 23 | 78 1880 |Chicago |Anson | 67 | 18 | 84 1881 |Chicago |Anson | 56 | 28 | 84 1882 |Chicago |Anson | 55 | 29 | 84 1883 |Boston |H. Wright| 63 | 35 | 98 1884 |Providence |Bancroft | 84 | 28 | 112 1885 |Chicago |Anson | 87 | 25 | 112 1886 |Chicago |Anson | 90 | 34 | 124 1887 |Detroit |Watkins | 79 | 45 | 124 1888 |NewYork |Mutrie | 84 | 47 | 131

It will be seen that in the old Professional Association the Boston club won the pennant four times, and the Athletics once, while in the League the Chicago Club won it six times, the Boston Club three times, the Providence Club twice, and the Detroit and New York once each. The best percentage of victories was made by the Boston Club in 1875, that being the best on record in professional club history.

THE CHAMPION LEAGUE TEAM OF 1888.

Though the New York Club's team for 1888 included over twenty different players, only seven of them took part in one hundred championship matches and over, and these were Richardson, 135; Connor, 134; Ward, 122; Tiernan, 113; O'Rourke, 107; Ewing, 103, and Slattery, 103. Whitney took part in 90; Gore in 64; Keefe in 51; Welch in 47; Foster in 37; Murphy in 28; Hatfield in 27; Titcomb in 23; Brown in 17, and Crane in but 11. All the others played in less than ten games. The first nine were Keefe p, Ewing c, Connor 1b, Richardson 2b, Whitney 3b, Ward ss, O'Rourke lf, Slattery cf, and Tiernan, rf, these playing the nine positions respectively. The appended table presents an interesting epitome of the work done on the field by the New York team in the championship contests of the past season:

NEW YORK. vs. | | P | | | | I | || | | h | | | | n | || | | i | | | | d | W || | | l | | | P | i | a || | | a | | | i | a | s || | C | d | | D | t | n | h || | h | e | B | e | t | a | i || T | i | l | o | t | s | p | n || o | c | p | s | r | b | o | g || t | a | h | t | o | u | l | t || a | g | i | o | i | r | i | o || l | o | a | n | t | g | s | n || s | . | . | . | . | . | . | . || . ——————————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-++—- Victories | 8 |14 |12 |11 |10 |14 |15 || 84 Defeats |11 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 4 || 47 Drawn Games | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 || 7 Series Won | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 || 5 Series Lost | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 || 1 Series Unfinished | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 || 6 Victories by Forfeit| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 || 1 "Chicago" Victories | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 || 19 "Chicago" Defeats | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 || 3 Single Figure | 5 |12 |10 |11 | 8 |11 |14 || 71 Victories | | | | | | | || Single Figure |11 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 4 || 44 Defeats | | | | | | | || Double Figure | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 || 13 Victories | | | | | | | || Double Figure | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 || 4 Defeats | | | | | | | || Extra Inning Games | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 || 9 Victories at Home | 4 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 || 43 Defeats at Home | 5 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 || 23 Victories Abroad | 4 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 7 || 40 Defeats Abroad | 6 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 || 24

THE PITCHING RECORD.

The pitching record of the champion team of 1888 is worthy of note in regard to the figures showing the victories won and defeats sustained by each pitcher in his games with the seven opposing clubs. Here is the record in full, the names being given in the order of percentage of victories. Despite this method of estimating the pitching strength there is no questioning the fact of the superiority of Keefe, Welch and Titcomb according to the record each made against the clubs they were opposed to:

[Illustration: NEW YORK TEAM. 1 TITCOMB 2 KEIFE* 3 WHITNEY 4 * 5 WARD 6 RICHARDSON 7 FOSTER 8 WELCH 9 MUIRIL * 10 CRANE 11 GEORGE 12 EWING 13 CONNOR 14 HATFIELD. 15 GORE 16 O'ROURKE 17 TIERNAN 18 MURPHY 19 BROWN]

[**Proofreaders note: In some cases the caption identifying the players was indecipherable. These are marked with an *]

| | P | | | | I | || |P
| | h | | | | n | || |e
| | i | | | | d | W || |r
| | l | | | P | i | a || | V
| | a | | | i | a | s || |c i
| C | d | | D | t | n | h || |e c
| h | e | B | e | t | a | i || T |n t
| i | l | o | t | s | p | n || o |t o
| c | p | s | r | b | o | g || t |. r
| a | h | t | o | u | l | t || a | i
| g | i | o | i | r | i | o || l |o e
| o | a | n | t | g | s | n || s |f s
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . || . | .
———-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-+——-++——-+——-
|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.|W.|L.||W.|L.|
———-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+——-
Keefe | 3| 4| 5| 1| 5| 4| 5| 0| 3| 1| 8| 2| 6| 0||35|12|.744
George | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 0| 0|| 2| 1|.666
Titcomb| 1| 1| 2| 0| 1| 1| 3| 3| 2| 2| 1| 0| 4| 1||14| 8|.636
Welsh | 3| 6| 5| 4| 6| 3| 1| 2| 4| 2| 3| 1| 4| 1||26|19|.577
Weidman| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 1| 0| 0| 0|| 1| 1|.500
Crane | 1| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 1| 1| 0| 1| 0| 2| 1| 2|| 5| 6|.450
———-+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—+—++—+—+——-
Totals | 8|11|14| 5|12| 8|11| 7| 9| 7|14| 5|15| 4||83|47|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |[1]

[Footnote 1: The game forfeited by Pittsburg is, of course, not included.]

In the pitching averages, based on the existing method of estimating earned runs off the pitching, the record stands as follows:

Pitchers.|Per cent. earn'd|Per cent. of
|Runs per Game. |Base Hits.
Keefe | 1.4* | .198
| [B] |
Welch | 1.47 | .201
Titcomb | 1.82 | .212

[**Proofreaders note B: * undecipherable number**]

The other three pitchers did not pitch in a dozen games.

THE FULL LEAGUE RECORD.

The following record presents the scores of the total victories won by every League Club each year since the National League was organized, the table presenting the figures of thirteen consecutive seasons from 1876 to 1888 inclusive:

| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | Y
| 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | r
| 7 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | s
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | .
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-
Chicago | 52| 18| 30| 44| 67| 56| 55| 59| 62| 87| 90| 71| 77|13
Boston | 39| 31| 41| 49| 40| 38| 45| 63| 73| 46| 56| 61| 70|13
Providence | —| —| 38| 55| 52| 47| 52| 58| 84| 53| —| —| —| 8
Detroit | —| —| —| —| —| 41| 42| 40| 28| 41| 87| 79| 68| 8
Buffalo | —| —| —| 44| 24| 45| 45| 52| 64| 38| —| —| —| 7
Cleveland | —| —| —| 24| 47| 36| 42| 55| 35| —| —| —| —| 6
New York | —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 46| 62| 85| 75| 68| 84| 6
Philadelphia| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 17| 39| 56| 71| 75| 69| 6
St Louis | 45| 19| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 38| 43| —| —| 4
Cincinnati | 9| —| 37| 38| 21| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 4
Troy | —| —| —| 19| 41| 39| 35| —| —| —| —| —| —| 4
Worcester | —| —| —| —| 40| 32| 18| —| —| —| —| —| —| 3
Washington | —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 26| 46| 48| 3
Indianapolis| —| —| 24| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 37| 59| 3
Hartford | 47| 24| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 2
Louisville | 30| 28| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 2
Pittsburg | —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 55| 66| 2
Athletic | 14| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 1
Mutual | 21| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 1
Syracuse | —| —| —| 15| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 1
Milwaukee | —| —| 15| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 1
Kansas City | —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| —| 29| —| 1
——————+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-+—-
Totals |257|120|185|288|332|334|334|390|447|444|448|521|541|

THE COMPLETE RECORD.

Following is a summary showing the results of each year's campaign since the organization of the League:

1876.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
—————-+——+——+————
Chicago | 52 | 14 | .788
Hartford | 47 | 21 | .691
St. Louis | 45 | 19 | .703
Boston | 39 | 31 | .557
Louisville | 30 | 36 | .455
Mutual | 21 | 35 | .375
Athletic | 14 | 45 | .237
Cincinnati | 9 | 56 | .135

1877.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
—————-+——+——+————
Boston | 31 | 17 | .648
Louisville | 28 | 20 | .583
Hartford | 24 | 24 | .500
St. Louis | 19 | 29 | .396
Chicago | 18 | 30 | .375

1878.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
——————-+——+——+————
Boston | 41 | 19 | .707
Cincinnati | 37 | 23 | .617
Providence | 33 | 27 | .550
Chicago | 30 | 30 | .500
Indianapolis | 24 | 36 | .400
Milwaukee | 15 | 45 | .250

1879.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
—————-+——+——+————
Providence | 55 | 23 | .705
Boston | 49 | 29 | .628
Chicago | 44 | 32 | .579
Buffalo | 44 | 32 | .579
Cincinnati | 38 | 36 | .514
Cleveland | 24 | 53 | .312
Troy | 19 | 56 | .253
Syracuse | 15 | 27 | .357

1880.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
—————-+——+——+————
Chicago | 67 | 17 | .798
Providence | 52 | 32 | .619
Cleveland | 47 | 37 | .559
Troy | 41 | 42 | .494
Worcester | 40 | 43 | .482
Boston | 40 | 44 | .474
Buffalo | 24 | 58 | .293
Cincinnati | 21 | 59 | .263

1881.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
—————-+——+——+————
Chicago | 56 | 28 | .667
Providence | 47 | 37 | .559
Buffalo | 45 | 38 | .542
Detroit | 41 | 43 | .488
Troy | 39 | 45 | .464
Boston | 38 | 45 | .458
Cleveland | 36 | 48 | .429
Worcester | 32 | 50 | .390

1882.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
—————-+——+——+————
Chicago | 55 | 29 | .655
Providence | 52 | 32 | .619
Buffalo | 45 | 39 | .536
Boston | 45 | 39 | .536
Cleveland | 42 | 40 | .512
Detroit | 42 | 41 | .506
Troy | 35 | 48 | .422
Worcester | 18 | 66 | .214

1883.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
——————+——+——+————
Boston | 63 | 35 | .643
Chicago | 59 | 39 | .602
Providence | 58 | 40 | .592
Cleveland | 55 | 42 | .567
Buffalo | 52 | 45 | .539
New York | 46 | 50 | .479
Detroit | 40 | 58 | .408
Philadelphia| 17 | 81 | .173

1884.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
——————+——+——+————
Providence | 84 | 28 | .750
Boston | 73 | 38 | .658
Buffalo | 64 | 47 | .577
Chicago | 62 | 50 | .554
New York | 62 | 50 | .554
Philadelphia| 39 | 73 | .348
Cleveland | 35 | 77 | .313
Detroit | 28 | 84 | .250

1885.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
——————+——+——+————
Chicago | 87 | 25 | .776
New York | 85 | 27 | .758
Philadelphia| 56 | 54 | .509
Providence | 53 | 57 | .481
Boston | 46 | 66 | .410
Detroit | 41 | 67 | .379
Buffalo | 38 | 74 | .339
St. Louis | 36 | 72 | .333

1886.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
——————+——+——+————
Chicago | 90 | 34 | .725
Detroit | 87 | 36 | .707
New York | 75 | 44 | .630
Philadelphia| 71 | 43 | .622
Boston | 56 | 61 | .478
St. Louis | 43 | 79 | .352
Kansas City | 30 | 91 | .247
Washington | 28 | 92 | .233

1887.
|Won|Lost|Per cent.
——————+——+——+————
Detroit | 79 | 45 | .637
Philadelphia| 75 | 48 | .610
Chicago | 71 | 50 | .587
New York | 68 | 55 | .553
Boston | 61 | 60 | .504
Pittsburg | 55 | 69 | .444
Indianapolis| 46 | 76 | .377
Washington | 37 | 89 | .294

1888.
|Won |Lost|Per cent.
——————+——+——+————
New York | 84 | 47 | .641
Chicago | 77 | 58 | .510
Philadelphia| 69 | 61 | .531
Boston | 70 | 64 | .522
Detroit | 68 | 63 | .519
Pittsburg | 66 | 68 | .493
Indianapolis| 50 | 85 | .370
Washington | 48 | 86 | .358

A summary of the above shows that the Chicago club won the championship six times; the Boston club three times; the Providence club twice, and the Detroit and New York clubs once each. The Chicago club has the best record of a single season—90 victories and 34 defeats-and the highest percentage of victories .798. The only clubs which played in every single season were the Chicago and Boston clubs.

THE LEAGUE AVERAGES FOR 1888.

The following is the official batting record of players members of League
Clubs who have taken part in fifteen or more championship games.

SEASON OF 1888.

[**Proofreaders note: Table has been split into two parts in order to fit on page.**] | | | G | T | | | | | a | i | R | | | | 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: