the Phillies of the 1890's

[Blackout]

they had Hamilton, Delahanty and Thompson in the outfield, and Clements at catcher (probably the best offensive catcher in those years)

how the hell did they not win a pennant? let alone get a 2nd place finish

[KCGHOST]

Tough to win without pitching. Only in 1892 did they have above average pitching. All others years their pitching was sub-par.

[Baseball Guru]

Tough to win without pitching. Only in 1892 did they have above average pitching. All others years their pitching was sub-par.

Good call KC...
Not to mention that perenial powerhouses Boston had a pitcher by the name of Nichols as well as great players of their own in Duffy and McCarthy and Baltimore had players like McGraw, Jennings, Brouthers, Keeler and Kelley...

Actually its a wonder that Baltimore didnt win more in the 90's.. But as KC points out, they had terrible pitching!

In 1894, EVERY starter hit over .303... In fact, take out that .303 average by Heinie Reitz, all the other starters hit between .335 and .393... Of course even crappy pitching couldnt keep them from finishing 1st with that lineup;)

Here are the HOF'ers that played on that Baltimore team:
Dan Brouthers
Willie Keeler
John McGraw
Hughie Jennings
Joe Kelley

[Imapotato]

You have found the greatest weakness in the organization that are the Phillies

All the time, they get great bats in favor of weak arms

The only time they reversed it?

1913-1916

They had Rixey, Alexander et al and traded them away....for hitting :(

[Buzzaldrin]

Good call KC...
Not to mention that perenial powerhouses Boston had a pitcher by the name of Nichols as well as great players of their own in Duffy and McCarthy and Baltimore had players like McGraw, Jennings, Brouthers, Keeler and Kelley...

Actually its a wonder that Baltimore didnt win more in the 90's.. But as KC points out, they had terrible pitching!

In 1894, EVERY starter hit over .303... In fact, take out that .303 average by Heinie Reitz, all the other starters hit between .335 and .393... Of course even crappy pitching couldnt keep them from finishing 1st with that lineup;)

Here are the HOF'ers that played on that Baltimore team:
Dan Brouthers
Willie Keeler
John McGraw
Hughie Jennings
Joe Kelley


Boston had three HOFers in 1894, New York had four, Philly had those three but even their backup outfielder hit .416- Philly only had one starter that hit below .346, heck, even Cleveland had five hall of famers on the roster in 1894.

[Steve Jeltz]

Not to take away from Hamilton, Delahanty and Thompson, but how much did Recreation Park (Baker Bowl) account for the high batting averages that the Phils put up in that era? I know the Bowl became known as a batters haven in the 20th century, but, compared to other NL parks at that time, was there a more pronounced advantage to hitters in Baker Bowl in the 1890's?

[Buzzaldrin]

It did help, but hard to say just how much, since although Delahanty, for example, hit much better at home that season, Tuck Turner set two remarkable records that year, when he, among all hitters who've ever topped .400, had the highest ROAD average of the bunch (.443) and the lowest HOME average (.401).

No .400 hitter has ever hit less than .401 at home.

I think people were just gonna hit wherever that year.

[ziggy29]

Not to take away from Hamilton, Delahanty and Thompson, but how much did Recreation Park (Baker Bowl) account for the high batting averages that the Phils put up in that era? I know the Bowl became known as a batters haven in the 20th century, but, compared to other NL parks at that time, was there a more pronounced advantage to hitters in Baker Bowl in the 1890's?
Interestingly enough, Baker Bowl (aka the "Philadelphia Baseball Grounds") was listed as having a park factor under 100 in 1894 and in the "multi-year" calculation, meaning it favors pitchers.

Plus, the park was significantly changed in 1895 which made it a bit more hitter-friendly. That doesn't account for the explosion in 1894 when the team hit .349 and the four outfielders all hit over .400.

Looking specifically at the 1894 squad, the pitching just wasn't that good, especially on the road. While the Phils "only" surrendered 5.97 runs a game at home (a very good figure in 1894), they coughed up 9.36 on the road (only the weak Nats gave up more at 9.41). So it appears it isn't just park effect, though they were a rather awful road team (48-20 at home but just 23-37 on the road).