The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1907-02-17
TEAM WORK COUNTS
individuality Does Not Win
Baseball remnants.
STARS OFTEN A DRAWBACK
Despite Bill BFHdIey's Belief That In
dixiduaI Cracks Are AII-impOrtanf,
Great Playing Mines, on Paper, Are
Usually the Easiest TO Beat When
II Comes TO Active work.

Studying the possibilities OF a baseball
championship race before il begins. and
before the ownership Of a pennant for
the season is settled, is as fascinating
and entertaining as trying 10 solve the
mysteries Of bridge hands. why a girl
cannot pass mirror without stealing
one wee glance 10 see If her hat Is on
straight. and the transportation problem
Of 5000 90 individuals all Of whom want
20 transport the same way at the same
time.
The greatest fault on the part OF most
Of those who let their fancies picture
winners IS their forgetfulness as 10 the
value of teamwork
Despite Bill BradIeys statement LAST
week, individuality in baseball counts for
nothing If it Is not concentrated into mu-
tuality- Nine Chases might never win A
championship I'm their Iifetimes II they
could not be made 10 play as one Chase
team Of Hans" Wagners OF Iajoies
that could not subordinate themselves to
be parts Of whole, and each not the
whole part, would be more likely TO be
beaten than 70 win.
Easy 10 Defeat.
Some Of the greatest baseball clubs-on
paper-that have ever been organized have
been the easiest 10 beat True. they won
a certain share Of games. but when the
test came that was to determine their
skill they disintegrated Ike rock in an
eruption Of Vesuvius.
Years ago the Chicago Brotherhood club
was organized with material which seem
cd 10, suTpass that Of any ever welded into
one ball team. Two principal reasons ac-
counted for it. one that the hackers Of
the Chicago Brotherhood club were Sd
chicken-hearted that they would not start
In the fight unless they had the best in
sight, and the other that Comiskey could
only be- induced 70 go into the Brother
hood scheme by being assured Of some
thing that would maintain his St Louis
reputation.
The Chicago Brotherhood club was one
of the most lameutable fzzles in baseball
history. Why? No teamwork. no effort
al teamwork, no respect for anything by
the players except what they presumed
to be their surprising individual skill.
The Other Side.
On the other hand. see what teamwork.
properly exempIiaed. has done for some
clubs
Take the ST. Louis champions OF the
American Association, as an example.
There were good players on the team.
but there was better system in their play
Each man knew what was expected OF
him when the occasion arose. and each
man knew that there would be no excuse
for him Il he failed TO arise to the occa-
sion
There was another club ct about the
same period. that was one OF the few that
ever batted its way into a championship
CARELESS of teamwork, pitchers, or any
other assistance. That was the old De-
tTOit nine.
The Giants, In the SOS. until they mas
tered team work, never won a pennant.
So long as they tried TO play on the in
dividual plan they could always do just
Well enough not to be first in the race.
In 1SS9 the Cleveland team surprised all
the baseball world, IN the first year OF its
return TO the National League, by the
.brlliancy and dash OF its game, and for
more than half a season had the strong
Eastern teams frightened beyond meas
ure. It was wholly due 20 teamwork
for the Clevelands. Individually did not
compare favOrably with some Of their
competitors.
Helped Cleveland.
For five years after that Cleveland.
with the exception Of the Brotherhood
year. maintained a dangerous place in the
league race, because the nine played with
intelligent motives.
COntempOrane0us with Cleveland, and
even greater in some respects. was Bal
timore. another nine of consistent team
workers. Patched up Of players who had
been discarded by other managers, many
OF whom were said to be worthless, il
won championship after championship.
and has graduated more managers than
any major league nine in baseball his
tory.
PittsbuTg may be cited as a champion
ship in which teamwork was a pre-
vailing feature, and the Boston Americans
in their prime were another instance Of
like nature while teamwork has been the
keynote Of the Giants success, as well as
that of both the Chicago clubs.
And yet, how many there were, prior to
the success Of almost all of these teams,
who predicted little for them before the
beginning Of the first season in which
they establish their greatness2
Not individuality.
It does not take all stars to make a
star team. One or two stars with players
of average skill, but superior intelligence,
are sometimes worth infinitely more than
all stars whose selfish assertiveness in
duces them to try to keep their personal
profciencies in the limelight whether the
nine wins or loses.
Without cooperation a team Of all stars
can play great deal of brilliant, spec
taculaT and dazzling ball, and At the
finish of the game find themselves behind
their opponents, owing to their refusal To
subordinate picturesque agility 10 a plain
matter Of good '-hOss sense.
Therefore, when the baseball fan" sits
down 10 his task this spring of trying to
select the winner Of the coming race. let
him ponder more how this player and the
other player of a team Will Mt into the
general field work of the game than tire
his brain IN trying to demonstrate how a
collection Of players may be greater in
individual capacity than others. and fer
that reason he more successful.
For it's the team that pulls together
that ''yanks' the stump, and not the one
in which one horse balks while the other