The Greatest Infield in the History of Baseball
That Formidable Quartet,
Baker, Barry, Collins, and
McInnis, and How they Compare with Famous Infields
of Former Days. Athletics
vs. Cubs and Orioles.
By J. C. KOFOED
FRANK BAKER
Last season Connie Mack had the united support of the press of the country as the
logical contender for the 1912 pennant. Events which neither he nor anyone else foresaw,
made this prediction one of the many erroneous ones which have made baseball a synonym
for uncertainty.
But while Mack's great club was badly shattered in outfield and pitch-
ing staff there was nothing the matter with his infield.
N o , indeed, and even if he did not
win the pennant, there is some notoriety attached to the possession of the greatest infield
which ever trod a diamond.
From first base to third there is no such formidable quartet
on any other club as Baker and Barry and Collins and McInnis. A stone wall in defense,
an irresistible force in offensive play, it is a matchless machine, in all human probability
the finest which has ever been gathered together.
T
"
HE greatest infield in the history
of the game," a noted sporting
authority declared recently in
speaking of McInnis, Collins, Barry and
Baker of the Philadelphia Athletics.
" I ' v e seen thousands of infielders in my
career as a newspaper man, but none the
equal of those boys. Baltimore had a
wonderful quartet in 1894, with Dan
Brouthers, Reitz, Jennings and Johnny
McGraw. Every man was a three hundred hitter, but neither individually nor
collectively did they outshine the Athletics. Boston, in '98, flashed out with
a great infield, Tenney, Lowe, Long and
Jimmy Collins, but they could not show
the Philadelphians points in either fielding or batting. In 1907-08, with Frank
Chance, John Evers, Joe Tinker and
Harry Steinfelt for guardians of the inner works, the Chicago Cubs brought
"inside ball to its point of greatest development. Evers was the only man during those two seasons, however, to hit
.300, while on the other hand Barry is
the one Athletic who does not bat far
above those figures. Collectively the
Philadelphians bat fifty-four points better
than the Cubs, or .321 to .267, such a
wide difference in offensive strength being sufficient to give them the palm."
This sporting authority is undoubtedly
correct.
The "$100,000" infield outclasses every other combination that has
ever appeared in either league.
It is strange, but true, that each team
winning a world's championship since
1903 has had a flaw in the infield that
has kept it from being classed with the
Athletics.
In 1903 Boston had a splendid infield,
though only Parent and Collins were real
56
THE GREATEST INFIELD
hitters. McGann was the one slugger
with the Giants two years later, Gilbert,
Dahlen and Devlin all hitting under .250,
weaker even than those famous "hitless
wonders," the Chicago White Sox who
won the pennant in 1906.
When the Cubs triumphed in the two
succeeding seasons, their infield was remarkable, though ranking under the Athletics in mechanical ability. Pittsburgh
grabbed the gonfalon in 1909, with two
weak points in its inner defense. Hans
Wagner, at shortstop, would make almost any team look strong, and with
Johnny Miller at second, the keystone
pair were superb.
They also had in
Bobby Byrne a splendid fielding third
sacker, though his sticking was lamentably weak.
But with a mediocre first
baseman in Bill Abstein their efficiency
was considerably reduced.
Last year the Red Sox won a world's
championship with an infield that had
only two men who could compare with
their Athletic rivals. Neither Stahl nor
Yerkes class with McInnis or Collins,
while Gardner is far from being as valuable as "Homerun" Baker.
"Heine''
Wagner, the peppery team captain, is,
as a whole, no more valuable than " R e liable Jack" Barry.
In the National League at the present
time New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh
and St. Louis have strong, and in some
cases, brilliant infields.
The Giants are weak at shortstop,
though Arthur Shafer is expected to plug
that hole effectively. Pittsburgh's only
gap is at the keystone sack, where Butler,
McCarty and Eastman are fighting for
place. The Phillies have a grand fielding
quartet, but last year only Knabe and
Lobert hit at their regular pace. Konetchy and Huggins of St. Louis are heavy
hitters, and Arnold Hauser has few
superiors as a fielder.
The American League hasn't an infield
that even comes within hailing distance
of the Athletics. Washington has a good
one, but McBride is a veteran who is
slowing up. First base is a big problem
in Chicago. W i t h Gainor crippled and
second and third covered by inexperienced "rookies," Detroit has only one
star in Donie Bush. The Yankees are
experiments, except Hartzell and Chase.
Lajoie, though having served seventeen
57
EDDIE COLLINS
years in the majors, is the only dependable in Cleveland. St Louis has but a
fair quartet.
It is acknowledged that the Athletics'
infield outshines every other now before
the public. Tell an old timer, however,
that it is the best that has ever appeared,
and listen to the howl of protest he will
raise.
But he will have to acknowledge that
in speed and brain alertness the White
Elephants have never been excelled. If
he starts to quote figures tending to
show the superiority of the players
of his youth you will have him in a
hole.
In 1911, their best year, Mack's quartet's combined batting and fielding averages totaled 5.151, made as follows:
58
McInnis
Collins
Barry
Baker
THE BASEBALL MAGAZINE
Field, av. Bat. av. Total.
.985
1.306
.321
.365
1.331
.966
.943
1.208
.265
.334
1.306
.972
——————————————
5.151
3.866
1.285
This record, remember, was made in a
season of over one hundred and fifty
games. No other team playing near that
number of contests has approached it.
The Athletics of 1871, playing thirty
games, totaled 5.146 with Fisler, Reach,
Radcliffe and Meyerle. Boston, in '73,
with Mannig, Barness, Wright and
Schaefer in the lineup made 5.005 in a
sixty game schedule.
One club, the
Chicago team of 1876, Cal McVey, Ross
Barnes, Peters and " P o p " Anson playing,
made 5.186 points in sixty games, a record higher than that of the Athletics.
It must be remembered, however, that
it was made under entirely different conditions, and on a schedule of less than
half the number of games played today.
Coming down to more recent times, the
Baltimore Orioles of '94 presented one
of the strongest infields ever gotten to-
gether. For all-around ability they were
wonders, and the fact that they played a
one hundred and twenty-five game
schedule, makes a closer basis of comparison possible. Brouthers, Reitz, Jennings and McGraw totaled 5.086 points,
outclassing every infield that showed itself in opposition.
The champion Athletics of 1902 had
three remarkable sluggers in Davis,
Murphy and Lave Cross. Only the fact
that Monte Cross was a "weak sister"
with the bat, keeps them from pressing
their 1911 successors for first place.
The wonderful Cub machine, though
making only 4.926 points, was very nearly
as good as the Baltimore combination.
The five greatest infields of modern
baseball history rank as follows:
Points
(1911)
Philadelphia Athletics
5.151
(1894)
5.086
Baltimore Orioles
5.015
Boston Red Sox
(1898)
4.989
(1902)
Philadelphia Athletics
(1908)
4.926
Chicago Cubs
So, even you partizan fans of rival
cities, acknowledge that Connie Mack's
"$100,000 infield" is the greatest that
ever wore a glove.
——————–