1800's -- The Best Pitching Era

by user Ufgators

Around 1880-early 1900, baseball saw incredible pitching feats that will undoubtedly never be duplicated EVER again. Of course, I am talking about the era (not earned run average, but rather time/era) of 30+ wins in a season, and pitching every 2-3 days.

Denny McLain, who won thirty-one (31) games in 1968 is the only modern day pitcher with more than 30 wins in a season, yet does not rank anywhere among the top 100 pitchers in single season wins.

In 1884, "Old Hoss" Radbourn of the Providence Grays (NL) went 59-12 in 678.2 innings.

"'Tired out tossing a little five-ounce baseball for two hours?' Radbourn asked incredulously. 'I used to be a butcher. From 4 in the morning until 8 at night I knocked down steers with a 25-pound sledge. Tired from playing 2-hours a day for 10 times the money I used to get for 16 hours a day?'" - Roger Kahn in The Head Game (Baseball Almanac)

Indeed, Old Hoss pitched in an entirely different setting than today's pitchers pitch in, but 678 innings is still 678 innings. Oh, by the way, he had one save that season, too. Is it possible for another pitcher to come any where near the 30-win mark? Baseball Almanac says that a "great" season for a modern day pitcher is 20 wins, which we can all agree with. A pitcher with about 20 wins would rank 380th all time among the top winning seasons of all time.

So, in an era full of steroids and scandal, why haven't we seen a pitcher with more wins? Greg Maddux has had downright amazing seasons with a miniscule ERA and tons of strikeouts, yet has never won more than 20 games in a season. (Baseball-Reference.com) One would think that the steroids that some pitchers have been taking should only enhance their performance, yet we haven't been introduced to a 30 win pitcher in almost 40 years. Of course, I know there are many factors that I am not discussing, but I sure do wish I could have seen Radbourn, Cy Young, John Clarkson, Pud Galvin, among others, play, for those pitchers truly are the greatest ever.

To check out the all-time single season wins list, visit: http://baseball-almanac.com/pitching/piwins3.shtml

Date

Fri 07/07/06, 2:15 pm EST

Michalski81Soccer Kid

1243 days ago

Score 1

ok there was some AMAZING and INCREDIBLE pitching stats back then john clarkson had some impressive and insane stats but i have looked and looked and cannot find Satchel Paige stats from the Negro league days.i have found his MLB stats but i want his good stuff from the Negro Leagues. Help Anyone?

Permalink | Reply

SteaksammichRed-Shirting

1242 days ago

Score -1

There aren't really any stats for the Negro leagues. They weren't tracked as much as the major leagues were.

Permalink

Michalski81Soccer Kid

1243 days ago

Score 1

Also i just looked at "Old Hoss" stats and the season he won 59 games he had a 1.38 era !!!!what?!!!!

Permalink | Reply

ASwaffAll-American

1243 days ago

Score 1

If you look at stats from those eras, that kind of ERA wasn't the kind of accomplishment it is today. Again, it's the way the game was played at the time. It was a time when entire teams would hit 20 or 30 homeruns in a season. In an entire season, an entire team would have have less than 40 homeruns. It's not like today, where you usually need four runs or more to win a game. In 1916 and 1917, for example, Babe Ruth went 47-25 with an ERA of 1.88.

http://mlb.m...yerID=121578

In 1910, Jack Coombs went 31-9 with a 1.30 ERA for the Philadelphia Athletics.

http://mlb.m...yerID=112639

Joe Wood, a regular outfielder for the Red Sox, had three seasons with an ERA under 2.00 (1.69, 1.40, 1.91), and one 34-win season.

http://mlb.m...yerID=124535

Vic Willis, of the Pirates, pitched for 13 seasons, and only had an ERA over 3.00 just three times. He had 35 or more starts 10 times, and had more than 20 complete games in every season but one.

http://mlb.m...p;statSet2=1

Again, I say none of this to take anything away from these players. I'm just saying that you have to put these things in context. That was a very different time, and a very different game.

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1243 days ago

Score 0

Let me elaborate a little more on the complete game idea. In 148 career starts, Babe had 107 complete games. Wood had 121 complete games in 158 starts. Coombs had 187 complete games in his career. Willis had 388 complete games in his career. Do you really think those guys would be pitching that many innings if they were throwing as hard as guys throw these days, throwing 130-150 pitches every game?

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1243 days ago

Score 1

If you want to put that in perspective, Greg Maddux has one more complete game in his career than Babe Ruth did, but he has had 509 more starts. Clemens is the active leader in complete games with just 118.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1242 days ago

Score 0

wow, very good research. my article served just the purpose i intended. But with your complete games argument: Granted, Babe has many complete games, but he has a 94-46 record..nowhere near the records of maddux or the rocket. so who do you think would win in a pitchers duel, Roger Clemens or Old Hoss?

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1242 days ago

Score 0

Well, I haven't seen Hoss pitch. But, going on what I know, I'd definitely have to say Clemens. Players back then didn't see 95 MPH fastballs and incredible splitters like Clemens' did, at least not with the frequency that players see them today. And unless Hoss had stuff that was colossally better than anyone else during his time, he probably doens't have anything players today don't see on a pretty regular basis.

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1242 days ago

Score 0

By the way, going back to Ruth - no, he didn't have a superb record. But, he also had a lot of seasons with ERAs that were less than spectacular by his days stanards, or even today's standards. But, he did have a pair of amazing seasons. That was kind of my point about those days - in the current era, when a pitcher has a flukey season, he has an ERA around between 2.50 and 3.50. In those days, a pitcher would have an ERA between 1.30 and 1.75 in a flukey season.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1242 days ago

Score 0

good point...but i wanted my point to be that those records will never be duplicated, as the game has changed greatly, and i wish i had the privilage of seeing those guys pitch.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1242 days ago

Score 0

you brought up valid points, but pitching in those days was by no means easy! think of all the great hitters in those days...there were some great hitters in that time, too, so everythign equals out. for example, old hoss, a great pitcher, pitched to some great hitters of his time. roger clemens, a great pitcher, pitched to great hitters of his time. it is all relevant; old hoss faced the great hitters of his era and dominated, and the rocket did the same. its all relevant

Permalink

ASwaffAll-American

1242 days ago

Score 1

Sorry, I guess I missed the your point that the game had changed. I came away with the impression that you thought that the records wouldn't be broken because the pitchers had changed, because they were weak and fragile, or something like that. I totally agree - with the changes of the game, those are records that will never be duplicated. Even though it's a lot closer to this very era, that's I feel the same about Nolan Ryan's strikeout record. Nobody will pitch that well for that long again. Pitcher's just don't do it anymore.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1242 days ago

Score 0

exactly. but the sad thing is, if we ever see a 30 win pitcher again, he will undoubtedly be labeled as a steroid user.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1243 days ago

Score 0

EXACTLY MY POINT. my generation is such a tired and lazy generation, whereas the 1800's brought us players with determination, PURE power and great, untainted skill. I wish i was able to see those guys play. Like i said, 600 something innings is still 600something innings, and 59 wins is 59 wins.

Permalink | Reply

ASwaffAll-American

1243 days ago

Score 2

While I agree we live in a lazy generation, I hardly think that baseball stats from the 1800s verify the premise. There is a number of reasons that pitchers threw more innings at that time, not the least of which is the fact that hitters went up there to hit. You didn't see the kind of walks you do now, and you didn't see the kind of pitch counts you do now. Pitchers didn't throw nearly as hard, so there wasn't as much wear and tear. They also didn't have the kind of strain from throwing the kind of breaking pitches that guys throw these days. The reason pitcher's don't throw 600 innings isn't because they're lazy, it's because their body isn't up to the way the game is played today. I'm sure Hoss was a tough dude, but you put him in there and make him try to pitch the kind of game people play right now, and I guarantee he wouldn't be throwing that many innings.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1243 days ago

Score 0

unfortunately, Negro League stats weren't kept all that well. The problem we have with Mr.Paige is the same problem we have with Josh Gibson. No one can really verify the authenticity of the legends about these amazing players.

Permalink | Reply

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1243 days ago

Score 0

well, i should say no one can really give exact stats for those amazing players.

Permalink

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1243 days ago

Score 0

i did mention it was different times and a different setting, but those accomplishments should be more highly revered than they are.

Permalink | Reply

CshimkinWaterboy

1242 days ago

Score 2

"Pud" Galvin was the first well known steroid user. In 1889 he was openly using the Brown Sequard Elixir, which was a mixture of animal testosterone that he injected hypodermically. Look it up!

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1242 days ago

Score 0

Perhaps if teams had a starter (in the same way they have a closer now), then 59 win smight be made.

Permalink | Reply

LeftyloonJV Squad

1242 days ago

Score 1

The 4 and 5 man rotation coupled with the lowering and backing up of the pitchers mound have reduced pitchers dominance since the 1800s. Those guys were playing a totally different ballgame, but its still fun to look back at some of the 'playstatio-esque' stats they put up.

Permalink | Reply

Michalski81Soccer Kid

1242 days ago

Score 0

my old boss would love this talk he always came up with names of guys from the 1800's early 1900's who had just mind boggleing stats.and it was funny because he was part of a fantasy baseball league that would use only retired players dating back to 1800's and you would put together a team as you do in normal fantasy. they had some weird injuries though players out 5 games because of a dog bite,9 games because of a concussion suffered from a fight with a neighbor just some wacky stuff.

and one of the stats he pointed out to me was Cy Young and his games started-to complete games stats.

22 year career and he had pitched in 906 games and Started 815 with...with 749 complete games!

Permalink | Reply

UfgatorsDiv-I Stud

1242 days ago

Score 0

incredible. I just love the "playstation-esque" stats which is why i wanted to share them with you. I mean 59 wins is indeed mind-boggling.

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

1042 days ago

Score 0

I love it

Permalink | Reply

Anonymous Fanatic #1

1042 days ago

Score 0

You are right

Permalink