Evening star., 1922-01-24

The leading five pitchers of the
American League In 1920 by the earn
ed run percentage were Shawkey.
2.46; Coveleskie, 2.4s: Shocker, 2.1:
Rommel, 2.S4, and Bagby, 2.89. That
is a grand total of 2.67. which is not
wonderful by long shot. In 1921 the
first five in this same league We're:
Faber, 2.4S: Morton, 2.15; Piercy. 2:S6:
Mogridge, 800. and Mays. 3.0S. That
Is less wonderful with it's grand total
of 2.S3 and yet there are only SIX
teen hundredths difference between
the years of 1920 and 1921. despite
all the talk about the ball being SO
lively last season. Figures show that
In 1921 as has been noised around,
compared, of course, with the previ-
Gus year.
Here Are the Statistics.
shawkey led in 1920 with 2.46 and
in 1921 was 4.08. The lively bali
doesn't seem to have had SO much to
do with Shawkey's awful falling off
as very bad arm which he growled
about during the early part OF is.i.
II he had to pitch from a new dls-
tance in 1922 he never would get go
Ing. Fans would be looking for his
average In 1928 with a & teles.epe .
was 2.48 in 1920 and 3.@6 last year.
and he did fall off in his work. oe.
cause he began to lose games IN lsEI
that he had gripped tight Tor tne
CIevelands the previous year. Bagby
Viii, his excellent record in 1920 of
2.S9. fifth in the league. saEged PACK
to 4.69 He was a failure for CleVe-
land all of the season because ne
could get nothing on the bail.
ON the other hand there is Faber.
leader of the league in 1921. with 2.4s,
against 29e for the season before:
The ball did not affect him any. IL
it did it surely was for the better.
In 1920 Morton of Cleveland had a.
average of AZ Look at him in 1927
with an average of , IS and second in
tie league MoEridge could only
throw the ball for the figures 4.S2 in
1870 and in 1921 he was fat 3e".
and there might have been times
when Huggins wished that ne mao
not permitted him to go to WASH
in need of a good left-hand pitcher
more than once. But perhaps 1t was
not Huggins who wished HIM on
Washington. In 1920 Mays was 800
and in 1921she was fifth in the league
and higher in ranking than / was
in 1920 with sos. and the comparison on
of Mays is as fair as any that can he
made, because he was s!stent
winner and pitcher both years.
Earned Runs Rest Gauge.
The season of 1921 proved that the
pitchers who tried were sklllfully
good as they were the year before
and as they usually are good un-
less they are borne down all of their
lives with the devilment of bad luck
Usually the victories and defeats
show their good fortune and their
bad more than anything else: The
earned run is a proof of skill display
ed in working against batters.
Men who were away up in the
American League in 1920 are far down
IN 1921 and others who were not so
good in 1920 weer in the sunlight of
success in 1921. More than anything
that gives evidence of the fact that
1t was Individual deterioration which
brought about SO much hammerIng OF
the ball and as many excuses for de-
feats. The same thing applies to the
National League pitchers when their
work is reviewed. The high-class
pitchers who were trying all OF the
season were effective.
Many pitchers of both organizations
have been in service a long time and
they are wearing out. Not all of the
younger pitchers have acquired that
standard which they will have in the
future, and, while this transition is
going on from good to inferior and
from mediocre to good. the pitching
will lack in effectiveness.