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.