In honor of Jamie Moyer's 250th win, show us your pre-war 253-297 game winners

[alaskapaul3]

I'll start it off with the guy who got closest to 300 without acheiving it.

[Tyler]

http://www.net54baseball.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1060&stc=1&d=1243945149

[kkkkandp]

<b>264 wins</b>

[Ladder7]

I know nothing about this fellow Moyer.

But, the Count could have well surpassed 284 wins, if he'd settled for less cabbage.
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/oche16/mullane-1.jpg

[Peter_Spaeth]

The 19th century win totals aren't meaningful on a straightforward comparison, given that it was not unusual for pitchers to start 50 plus games a year. Keefe started 60+ twice, and Clarkson started 70+ twice.

[Jim VB]

Here's a pair.

[Orioles1954]

Pete,

I absolutely agree. As much as we like to romanticize 19th century baseball, it isn't comparable to what we now know that game to be.

[pitchernut]

Unfortunately my cards are locked up, but you can add Ted Lyons and Red Ruffing to the list.

[Ladder7]

It's okay Jim, My wife does the same thing when I don't do enough around here also.

[pitchernut]

She says it's for my own protection...:):)

[kkkkandp]

I'm not sure why so many people pooh pooh the stats for 19th century baseball as if they were meaningless. Was the game then <b>exactly</b> the same as it is today? Of course not, but that was the state of the game at that time. For every Radbourn or Galvin who pitched in 70 games a season and managed to last for more than a few years so they could accumulate their 300 wins there were dozens of Elmer Smiths and Larry Corcorans who burned out from overuse after only a couple of years.

One might argue that the only reason someone like Don Sutton managed to win 300 games was that he lasted for 23 years because he only completed 23.5% of the games he started. Someone like Gus Weyhing completed over 89% of his starts. Everything is relative.

[rhettyeakley]

Peter, while I agree with what you are saying in regard to the number of starts a year, the problem is that those same pitchers also burned out fairly easily as they were asked to do a TON of work each start, as they were expected to finish every game they started. We have many examples of pitchers like Larry Corcoran, Frank Killen, Elmer Smith, etc. that went from good to terrible quickly due to their work-load. This is also what makes Cy Young an absolute freak of nature that he lasted as long as he did.

Ultimately though I agree with you that it is hard to compare 19th century pitchers to later ones because they are so different

[rhettyeakley]

Kevin, great minds must think alike, I was writing my response when you wrote yours and I can't believe we both used the same people as our examples. Anyways, I agree with what you said
-Rhett

[Peter_Spaeth]

I may be wrong about this, but other than another freak of nature, Anson, didn't most hitters have relatively short careers too?

[kkkkandp]

I have absolutely no statistical data to support this, but one would think that the career length of the average 19th century starting field player would be, on average, shorter than comparable players of today simply because of the conditions under which they played, the lack of sophisticated medical facilities/training practices and their general approach to the game - like playing drunk.

While Anson's career was exceptionally long, there were plenty of other stars of the day with long careers as well - Jim O'Rourke (23 years), Jake Beckley and Deacon White (20 years), Dan Brouthers (19 years) and Roger Connor (18 years). Heck, even a noted booze-hound like Pete Browning lasted 13 years.

[Misunderestimated]

Based on my reading there are a myriad of differences between pitching in the 19th century what Jamie Moyer accomplished... Each team generally had one starting Pitcher until the early 1880's, when Anson began rotating (or "alternating") 2 starters. Starters back then -- and well into the 20th century -- almost never came out.
Things changed and became more familiar to what we think of as starting Pitching in the 1893, when the pitching area was moved back to its current place.
According to many sources this was because of Amos Rusie's pitching -- he threw really hard and struck out players at an unprecedented rate (and nearly killed Hugh Jennings).
Rusie didn't quite make the 250 club (245-174 lifetime) but, like Count Mullane he missed critical time because of slary disputes with ownership. Unlike the Count and Bobby Mathews and many other bigger winners, Rusie made the Hall of Fame....
He was also part of what was probably the most one-sided trade in baseball history (I'm saying this a Cub fan who knows about Lou Brock!) ...
In 1900, after Rusie's arm was dead the Giants traded him to the Reds for a young and unremarkable pitcher, Christy Mathewson, who the Giants had already tried and returned to the minors.
Rusie did nothing for the Reds - he pitched poorly in a few games in 1901. Matty won 373 games for the Giants not including his World Series' victories.

[Brian Van Horn]

Here you go. I don't have anything else to do tonight since the Pirates were rained out (couldn't watch on tv) and I am still fuming over the McLouth trade.

Scanning the cards has been a slight bit therapeutic.

[Brian Van Horn]

Part 2: