Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1911-10-19

tons the Chief will work tomorrow and
either Plank or Coombs in the fifth game
at New York. 1t will be a hard task
to guess what McGraw'S selection will be,
between Crandall and Ames, unless, as
said before, he proposes TO take a des-
perate chance and work Marquard.
Matty certainly had one grand. time in
his efforts to square the circle yesterday.
1t will be recalled that he censured Mar
guard for permitting Baker to hit the ball
in Mondays game, and handed out lot
of dope which he had gathered from vari-
GUS sources showing Bakers strong and
weak points-the balls he could hit and
the balls he couldn't hit 1t read well.
although there was room to question the
rropriety of one pitcher criticising a fell
low-pitoher in the public prints. But how
must have known more about Bakers
limitations Tuesday than Marquard did
Monday. 1t does not follow that the
Athletics would have lost .aonday even
II Baker had not made his home run
drive, for Eddie Plank was going every
bit as good as Marquard 1t may be that
the Rube. being a left-handed pitcher,
felt justified in taking chances with Ba-
ker. left-handed batsman.. He took the
chance. however, for which we are still
his grateful debtors. But if it was bad
base ball generalship for Marquard to
permit Baker to hit the ball A.onday,
how much worse judgment it was for
Matty to permit him to hit it Tuesday.
There was an even chance for the Ath-
letics to have won Monday. even if Baker
had not made his homer. but if Matty had
taken no chance on him Tuesday and
walked him. the game would have been
the Giants. 10. at the end of the ninth
and the subsequent calamity in the elev-
enth would have been averted. Probably
Matty would have regarded it as a con-
IL Of aaL o,-t
TO purposely walk Baker; he may have
wanted to show the New York fans that
he could do that which Marquard failed
to do, but no matter by what motives he
was inspired, the fact remains that it was
bad piece of base ball. Doubtless it
would have been very gratifying to his
vanity to have disposed of Baker, and If
he had succeeded there would have been
no opportunity for this line of dope. But
under the circumstances he had no right
to take the chance.
Tuesday the Giants had ample opportu-
nifty to show the spectators how they
could stand the Athletics on their heads
by running the bases wild: but did they ?
Not so that you could notice it. They
started just five times. and five times they
were stopped by Jack Lapp's hard and
accurate pegs. 1t may be claimed in ex-
cuse for their failure to steal bases that
the going was rather soft. which il was.
but ii was Just as soft and heavy for the
Athletics, and they succeeded in getting
there on two different occasions, despite
Cnef Meyers efforts to head them off
Outside of Mathewson himself. the New
York critics and players placed more
faith in their base-running ability to win
the big series than to any other point of
superiority. They pointed to the fact that
about a half dozen of them had stolen
sixty or more bases during the season
record which would stand the Athletic
backstops on their heads when the series
began.
The same thing had been said about the
Chicago Cubs previous to the 1910 series,
but when the Cubs were compelled to
steal their bases on the field instead of on
paper they were made to look foolish by
both Thomas and Lapp. 1t may be that
the Giants are better base runners than
were the Cubs last season. Their record
for number of bases stolen is certainly
a most impressive one, but as has been
contended. it is not the number of bases
that runner steals during the course OF
a season SO much as 1t is his ability to