Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-02-18

parison. however. Is the fact that the In
field work has improved in Its thoroughness.
az sa, that fewer chances get away from the
may look like paradox In view OF the fact
that the number of chances per game re-
mains the same. but it Ia plain when the
figures are gone into further. Where the
Improvement shows Is in handling assists
showing that the infield works closer these
days and fewer ground balls get through
than formerly. Better team work between
the infieiders and improved gloves are uE-
doubtedly the explanation of this.
Consideration of the averages and deduc
lions from them Is made hard by the fact
that the schedule has been heightened out.
and that allowance must be made for in
dividual stars of any particular period Con-
sideftng the fact that the bali was more
lively and more long-distance hitting was
done years back. 1t would be natural to ex-
outheld. Such Is not the case. Take. for
instance. the three outfelders with the
greatest number of chances In 1890. The
trio that year was Donovan. Burke and Da-
Wis, and they handled 1.O43 chances be-
tween them. In 1895 the leading trio was
Clarke, McAleer and Cooley, and the bunch
pulled down 1,163 chances. In 1900 1t was
Burkett Setback and Van Haltren, and
they had Lilo chances to handle. In 1905
Thomas Seymour and Magee were the
leaders, with LIZA chances, but on the other
hand they had the advantage of loa-game
schedule against the older one Of 40
Going behind the returns this would in
dictate that the outfieid. has improved in
Its thoroughness along with the infield.
The older outfielders were content with re-
manning pretty much in one place in the
field, and a result they allowed good
percentage of the drives which modern
outfelder would get TO get away from them.
On the other hand more balls were driven
to the outf1eld. and they had more chances.
hence they held their own when 1t came to
percentage of chances with the infielders.
The infielders now do not play as far back
H.. IL hxy r>lo NO ha-
selves for the batters they are able to ham
die a greater number of the chances that
do come to the outfield. even though fewer
of these get past the infield now than for
merly.
Possibly the greatest change In infield
work has been around first base. 1t Is at
this point that what Improvement there
has been In infield work shows the strong
est. In 1890 and 1895 Reilly and Beckley,
the leaders In number of chances during
those years, each had 1853 chances. In
1900 Beckley was once more the leader, but
his total had jumped to 1.5l1. In 1898 Ten.
ney was to the front and he ran up a total
of 1.74O, part of this of course being due
to the large number of games played,
though this is not enough to entirely ex-
plain the increase. No small share of the
increase in chances at first base Is due to
the greater amount of territory covered by
the first sackers. and there has been a
continued increase in the assists by them
right along. Changes in other positions
have only been such as can be explained
by the difference in personality OF the play
ers during different periods.
What would seem to be the deduction
from the comparisons is that the outf1eld
has improved faster In recent years than
the infeld, and this Is probably true. Had
the older outfielders covered the field as
thoroughly as the present ones the per-
centage of chances would probably be In
their favor. owing to the greater amount
of long hitting done when they worked.
Infield work undoubtedly reached a nearer
point to perfection than outfield work at
an earlier period. and consequently there
has not been as great a chance to improve
the former outside of first base. In this
position 1t was formerly the custom to
place a heavy hitter regardless of his field
ing, while at present the fielding work at
first is almost If not counted on as much
as the batting. Hence the improvement