A glance at the averages of the players in last spring's games is of interest in comparing the work of the Harvard nine with that of the Yale and Princeton teams. As the table shows our nine fielded wretchedly, with the exception of a few players. In batting, Harvard was extremely weak, the hits of our players being made mainly in the games with Princeton. Five Yale players and one Princeton man rank, in the average of base hits, higher than our heaviest batsman, Willard; while the majority of the names of Harvard players appear at the bottom of the list. McConkey, the weakest batsman of the Yale team, ranks ahead of six of Harvard's players. This lack of ability to bat may be considered the chief cause of our defeat last June.

In the matter of stolen bases, Yale's superiority is clearly manifest. Yale has 46 stolen bases to her credit, while Harvard has but 23, only one-half as many.

As to errors, Yale made 42 to Harvard's 37. It is interest to note the wonderful battery work of Stagg and Bates, the former striking out 79 men, while the latter surpassed this record by five; and the combined efforts of two Princeton pitchers could hardly equal the half of the former number.

This does not include battery errors.

NAME. Gategories1 Gategories2 Position. Gategories3 Gategories4 Gategories5 Gategories6 Gategories7 Gategories8 Gategories9 Gategories10 Gategories11 Gategories12 Gategories13 Gategories14

Hunt Y 8 c. f. 1 33 10 16 28 484 848 3 13 0 3 812

McClintock Y 4 r. f., 2b. 2 13 3 5 8 384 615 5 8 5 3 815

Dann Y 8 c. 3 34 9 13 22 382 641 2 83 16 5 951

Calhoun Y 8 s. s., 2b., r. f. 4 37 8 13 20 351 545 8 9 9 5 782

King P 8 c. f., l. f., p., 2b., s. s. 5 33 7 11 12 333 363 5 5 89 14 870

Stagg Y 8 p. 5 30 4 10 15 333 500 2 10 40 19 724

Willard H 8 1b. 7 32 4 10 14 311 437 1 71 2 3 960

Campbell H 8 s. s. 8 36 10 11 13 308 361 5 8 19 11 710

Durell P 8 r. f., c. f. 9 33 4 10 12 303 363 3 12 4 2 888

Noyes Y 6 3b. 10 27 4 8 10 296 370 3 5 10 3 833