View Full Version : tony mullane,300 game winner?

09-27-2001, 12:27 PM
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>i was just reading on the website www.thedeadballera.com ,the obituaries for tony mullane,from 2 different papers(chicago times and new york post april 26th,1944)and both said Mullane had the distinction of being a 300 game winner? everywhere ive seen hes listed as either 285-287 wins...i would like to know why they thought he was a 300 game winner,maybe it was before all the stats were really proven?,before the encyclopedia was made?....i know we had this discussion before,i feel he has to be one of the leading hall of fame candidates from 19th century,but if he was thought to have been one of the best pitchers(according to the obit.) and was thought to be a 300 game winner,i wonder what kept him out back then,i mean 21 guys from his era to early 1900's made the hall,and he would have been a better choice then some of those guys(tinker,evers,bresnahan,mccarthy,etc)...John

09-27-2001, 01:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>He was definitely one of the better pitchers of his era and one of my three top 19th century pitching favorites for inclusion in the Hall (Jim McCormick and Gus Weyhing being the other two), but he <b>didn't</b> win 300 games. <BR><BR>Check it out: <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mullato01.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mullato01.shtml</a><BR><BR>He probably would have easily won 300 games had he not been suspended by the American Association in 1885 for all his contract jumping violations. <BR><BR>

09-27-2001, 03:05 PM
Posted By: <b>john</b><p>i was wondering why he was claimed in his obituary to be a 300 game winner? it could have just been an associated press story(i dont know if they did that back then) and it was wrong,or if up until a certain point he was considered a 300 game winner? i do know up until a certain point many stats werent up to date and someone went back to the first games boxscores and put together the first complete stats(im in the process of moving right now,and i already packed the book where i read this otherwise i would give better details,sorry,maybe someone else knows off-hand)... i know alot of the first old-time halof famers were elected based on stories of older writers and what they remembered,roger bresnahan was known as john mcgraws leadff hitter,christy mathewsons catchers,first wore shin pads(which is wrong),blah blah,whatever but hes no hall of famer,if there was no tinkers-evers-chance song maybe noe of them would have made the hall,their elections werent based on stats because no one had complete stats...sorry i cant post the link for his obits because of webtv's capabilities,but they are interesting reads...ill send it to someone who can and maybe they could post it for me....John

09-27-2001, 04:05 PM
Posted By: <b>Kevin Cummings</b><p>For those of you who would like to see the articles that John refers to, here is the link: <a href="http://www.crosswinds.net/~thedeadballera/Obits/MullaneTonysObit.html" target=_new>http://www.crosswinds.net/~thedeadballera/Obits/MullaneTonysObit.html</a><BR><BR>As an added bonus, here is the link to his (Mullane's, not John's <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> ) listing in Find A Grave <a href="http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=23261" target=_new>http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=23261</a><BR><BR>John - I think your assertion about the paucity or accuracy of records 50 years ago is probably correct. And the minds of the sportswriters of the day (no doubt aided by a few brewskies) could have yielded stories that were largely apocryphal. <BR><BR>One additional factor - the American Association was viewed as a level of competition not equal to that of the National League. Many of the brighter lights of the 19th century who played most or all of their career in the American Association (like Mullane) probably have had that held against them. Bid McPhee was the first, I believe, to break that line.