Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Old Hoss Radbourn - Stats inconsistency? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=234165)

h2oya311 01-20-2017 12:18 PM

Old Hoss Radbourn - Stats inconsistency?
 
1 Attachment(s)
I was looking up some information about Charles "Old Hoss" Radbourn and found what I believe to be some sort of statistical anomaly and/or error.

According to Baseball-Reference.com, in 1884, Old Hoss pitched in 75 games and started 73. Of the 73 he started, he completed all 73 (wow)! What doesn't make sense to me, however, is that his W-L record that season was 59-12. Incredible, yes. But how come there are only 59+12 = 71 decisions when he completed 73 games? By definition, if the game has been completed, wouldn't he have factored into the Win or Loss for the team?

I don't see any mention of ties back then although I presume some games were suspended due to darkness/weather. Even so, the delay of a game wouldn't have resulted in a Complete Game for Radbourn (to my knowledge).

Thoughts, comments, snide remarks?

scooter729 01-20-2017 12:26 PM

If you look at their schedule and results, you'll see a tie on June 6 and another on July 31. Doesn't appear they were made up or anything - just ended in a tie. Assuming Ol' Hoss pitched all of those games before they were called for darkness, that'd do it!

h2oya311 01-20-2017 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter729 (Post 1622443)
If you look at their schedule and results, you'll see a tie on June 6 and another on July 31. Doesn't appear they were made up or anything - just ended in a tie. Assuming Ol' Hoss pitched all of those games before they were called for darkness, that'd do it!

Thanks. I didn't see that. I assumed the W-L record at top of the team page would have included any ties as well. So officially the team was 84-28-2 that season.

Incredible season to say the least (for Radbourn and the team).

triwak 01-20-2017 01:07 PM

Off-topic, but didn't the Elias Sports Bureau credit him with a 60th Win (for one of his relief appearances, I think)? Not sure if MLB ever formally adopted it, though.

trdcrdkid 01-20-2017 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by triwak (Post 1622458)
Off-topic, but didn't the Elias Sports Bureau credit him with a 60th Win (for one of his relief appearances, I think)? Not sure if MLB ever formally adopted it, though.

When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s, Radbourn's record in 1884 was always given as 60-12, and I'm pretty sure that's what it was in at least the first two editions of the Baseball Encyclopedia (1969 and 1973). I'm not sure exactly when the record was corrected, but at some point somebody did the research and found that he had been mistakenly credited with a win for one of those ties. The single-season record for pitching wins was drilled into my head as 60 for so long that it still looks odd when I see his record given as 59-12, even though I know it's more accurate.

bwbc917 01-20-2017 06:15 PM

Hoss
 
Hoss did indeed lose a victory. It was a victim of careful scrutiny of the boxscores. A wonderful book on the season and Hoss is "Fifty-Nine in '84" by Edward Achorn.

The story has it all- deceit, deception, debauchery. It's quite a good read. Plus there's an excellent appendix listing all of Hoss' games and results.

triwak 01-20-2017 08:02 PM

Cool. Thanks, guys!

z28jd 01-20-2017 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwbc917 (Post 1622553)
Hoss did indeed lose a victory. It was a victim of careful scrutiny of the boxscores. A wonderful book on the season and Hoss is "Fifty-Nine in '84" by Edward Achorn.

The story has it all- deceit, deception, debauchery. It's quite a good read. Plus there's an excellent appendix listing all of Hoss' games and results.


I read the book, and while it had some good parts, there was a lot of filler that had nothing to do with his season. Writer put together a lot of speculation that was unnecessary and he breezed right by numerous games during the season by just saying the score. It would have been a much better book if it was half as long and stuck to the pertinent facts. He was much more interested in describing 1884 life off the field than talking about specific games.

Mountaineer1999 01-20-2017 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by z28jd (Post 1622611)
He was much more interested in describing 1884 life off the field than talking about specific games.

This is what I thought made the book so interesting, baseball against the backdrop of life in 1884.

Tabe 01-21-2017 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999 (Post 1622619)
This is what I thought made the book so interesting, baseball against the backdrop of life in 1884.

I'm with you. "59 in '84" was fantastic. I especially liked his description of beer vendors - warm beer, one cup for everybody. Uggggggggh.

btryin 01-21-2017 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999 (Post 1622619)
This is what I thought made the book so interesting, baseball against the backdrop of life in 1884.

I agree with this. I enjoyed reading about the context of baseball with life in that era. Gave me some understanding and connection with the roots of baseball as I grew up with it starting in the 1960's - connecting the wide-spaced dots.

z28jd 01-21-2017 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999 (Post 1622619)
This is what I thought made the book so interesting, baseball against the backdrop of life in 1884.

The problem for me is that there was more of that than the actual information on Radbourn. I bought it for the baseball content. I also didn't like the skimming over of many games, plus the constant speculation of what people were doing or thinking on specific days. No need for that over and over.

So it was more than just the concentration on non-baseball stuff. As someone mentioned, talking about the beer vendor is great because that's baseball related. Him going in depth on the town and things around it, was not for me. Really took away from the subject. You can set the mood for the era fairly quickly and then get to the subject. He broke away from the main subject numerous times to go on tangents.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:46 PM.