Slightly O/T: Did Cy Young "Only" Win 510 Games?

[z28jd]

While looking up some info for a player on the 1890 Pittsburgh Alleghenys, I ran across this very interesting note from the president of the Pittsburgh club. The Alleghenys played the Cleveland Spiders on September 18, 1890 in Canton, Ohio. The Spiders won and the winning pitcher was a rookie named Cy Young...

Here's the interesting part. The club president claimed that it was just an exhibition game in an 1890 issue of the Sporting Life two weeks later. Clubs played in-season exhibition games all of the time back then AND the Alleghenys played a game two days later in Wheeling, WV which he doesn't say anything about being an exhibition game.

You would think the club president would know if a game was an exhibition or not, but here he is in black and white claiming that one of Cy Young's career wins shouldn't be counted on his record.

[z28jd]

Perhaps more proof is needed?

The Pittsburgh Press from September 19, 1890

Or the standings two days after they played their final game. Current records show 23-113 for reference

[Fred]

John, they could take away 11 wins and he'd still have 500! Something tells me that is one of those unbreakable records...

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Fred

John, they could take away 11 wins and he'd still have 500! Something tells me that is one of those unbreakable records...

It wouldn't be a big deal (to me at least) if 511 wasn't such an iconic number. You mention 511 to any serious baseball fan and they should know it's Cy Young's win total.

Baseball lives for iconic numbers. I still find it completely ridiculous that every year on the anniversary of Pete Rose breaking Ty Cobb's hit record that absolutely nothing is mentioned, despite it being known for over 30 years that Cobb actually finished with 4,189 hits, not 4,191. Hit 4,192 was the moment he celebrated it and anyone who saw it, remembers it, but it needs to be called what it is. You just don't gloss over the actual historic moment because someone added wrong years ago.

I've found other mistakes and not shared them here, but this one is a pretty big deal and has some major proof that the game didn't count. The local paper didn't even print a boxscore, which could be a fourth example if I knew how to show something that wasn't there.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Maybe I missed it, but what makes you think the win was counted in his regular season totals?

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Maybe I missed it, but what makes you think the win was counted in his regular season totals?

It's listed as an official game now and he threw a complete game in the win.

All of the stuff above shows that it wasn't an official game and shouldn't be included in the stats for the 18 players in the game.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by z28jd

It wouldn't be a big deal (to me at least) if 511 wasn't such an iconic number. You mention 511 to any serious baseball fan and they should know it's Cy Young's win total.

Baseball lives for iconic numbers. I still find it completely ridiculous that every year on the anniversary of Pete Rose breaking Ty Cobb's hit record that absolutely nothing is mentioned, despite it being known for over 30 years that Cobb actually finished with 4,189 hits, not 4,191. Hit 4,192 was the moment he celebrated it and anyone who saw it, remembers it, but it needs to be called what it is. You just don't gloss over the actual historic moment because someone added wrong years ago.

I've found other mistakes and not shared them here, but this one is a pretty big deal and has some major proof that the game didn't count. The local paper didn't even print a boxscore, which could be a fourth example if I knew how to show something that wasn't there.

Iconic numbers change all the time. When I was a kid, Ty Cobb had a career .367 average, Hack Wilson got 190 RBI, Charles Radbourn got 60 wins, Hugh Duffy hit .438, Dutch Leonard had a 1.01 ERA, Walter Johnson had 414 wins, and so on.

We need to recognize the correct numbers.

[Butch7999]

Chris, agreed, correct, and if some evidence is unearthed that should change the currently official count,
it shouldn't just be bandied about by a few fans and left there.
z28jd, have you approached MLB, RetroSheet, and/or the HOF with your research?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by z28jd

It's listed as an official game now and he threw a complete game in the win.

All of the stuff above shows that it wasn't an official game and shouldn't be included in the stats for the 18 players in the game.

One thing to note, however, is that you are looking at only one side of the story. You are hearing from the Allegheny's club president and their dutifully obliging local newspaper. Do you have any record of what the Cleveland paper had to say about the same game? Not that I have any idea what the difference would be between 112 losses and 113. But the reasoning may have nothing to do with the yearly loss total. Maybe the club president had some kind of bet and was trying to welch out of it by claiming the game was just an exhibition? No idea. But I need to see more before I am convinced.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

One thing to note, however, is that you are looking at only one side of the story. You are hearing from the Allegheny's club president and their dutifully obliging local newspaper. Do you have any record of what the Cleveland paper had to say about the same game? Not that I have any idea what the difference would be between 112 losses and 113. But the reasoning may have nothing to do with the yearly loss total. Maybe the club president had some kind of bet and was trying to welch out of it by claiming the game was just an exhibition? No idea. But I need to see more before I am convinced.

The local papers weren't kind to the team at this time, so I highly doubt they combined with him to call a random road game an exhibition in the middle of a 112 loss season. The game recap above had to be sent to the local paper from whoever covered the game in Wheeling. They didn't do road trips back in 1890 to cover games.

There's also the matter of the team being 21-104 at the time. If he wanted to avoid losses, they wouldn't have cut some of the best players near the end of the season to save money.

The Sporting Life had this note in with all of their other random notes from the time, which were compiled by them. This was listed two issues before the quote from the team president

[markf31]

I've been trying to track down a game log, or list of games that are credited to Cy Young. Do you have a link showing that he was in fact the winning pitcher?

[markf31]

From the book The Pittsburgh Pirates By Fred Lieb, the author states this:



So Fred Lieb's research led him to the fact that the game was deemed an exhibition by the league.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by markf31

I've been trying to track down a game log, or list of games that are credited to Cy Young. Do you have a link showing that he was in fact the winning pitcher?

https://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1890/VCL401890.htm

Young made 16 starts and all 16 were complete games. You can see on there that Cleveland won 9, tied 1 and lost six. He recorded his other loss that season in his only relief outing. The game in question is Sept 18th, which is listed as an official game now, but wasn't official back then.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by markf31

From the book The Pittsburgh Pirates By Fred Lieb, the author states this:



So Fred Lieb's research led him to the fact that the game was deemed an exhibition by the league.

Under what circumstances would a league retroactively call a sanctioned league game an exhibition? What would be the purpose?

I suppose if the league (for whatever asshatted reason) deemed it to (retroactively) be an exhibition, then the stats should not count.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

Under what circumstances would a league retroactively call a sanctioned league game an exhibition? What would be the purpose?

I suppose if the league (for whatever asshatted reason) deemed it to (retroactively) be an exhibition, then the stats should not count.

I think it's the other way around. It was an exhibition game later called a regulation game, and I wouldn't necessarily say that happened in 1890. There was never a scheduled game for September 18th in Canton, OH or between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. The two teams played those games on Sept 15, 16 and 17 as well.

[markf31]

From the Pittsburgh Dispatch September 19, 1890 which calls it as being a "championship game".

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by markf31

From the Pittsburgh Dispatch September 19, 1890 which calls it as being a "championship game".

The Dispatch did not include it in the final standings days after the season ended:

[markf31]

Originally Posted by z28jd

The Dispatch did not include it in the final standings days after the season ended:

Interesting.

I have this also, from the Dispatch dated September 17, 1890 states that the NL clubs would play in Canton the following day.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by markf31

Interesting.

I have this also, from the Dispatch dated September 17, 1890 states that the NL clubs would play in Canton the following day.

.

The final results from the Dispatch say 23-112, which is now 23-113 and it says 6-11 vs Cleveland, which is now 6-12, so the Dispatch did not include that game in the final standings, even though they may have said earlier that it was a championship game.

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by markf31

From the Pittsburgh Dispatch September 19, 1890 which calls it as being a "championship game".

Sporting Life also covered it as a League game in the September 27th issue of 1890 (page 2, column 1):

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by RUKen

Sporting Life also covered it as a League game in the September 27th issue of 1890 (page 2, column 1):

Those quotes I have above about it being an exhibition game are from the Sporting Life. That boxscore you posted there might be the reason it was identified as a regulation game, even though the previous issue ran the one quote and the subsequent issue ran the other.

[z28jd]

There obviously seemed to be confusion about this game when it happened, BUT you have four sources saying it was an exhibition game, even though two of them earlier said it wasn't. Here is everything in one post:

1. Sept 13, The Sporting Life/schedule (all games that were played)
2. Sept 19, Pittsburgh Press/game recap w/ no boxscore
3. Sept 20, The Sporting Life/game recap
4. Oct 4, Alleghenys President/quote
5. Oct 5, Pittsburgh Press/final standings
6. Oct 5, Pittsburgh Dispatch/final standings

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by z28jd

There obviously seemed to be confusion about this game when it happened, BUT you have four sources saying it was an exhibition game, even though two of them earlier said it wasn't.

But the final standings as reported in Sporting Life and the Spalding Guide had included that game in the standings. The fact that the Pittsburg team president felt compelled to complain (that the Canton game was supposed to have been an exhibition) suggests that there had been some decision made that this game counted as a championship game. Apparently it was supposed to be a makeup game for one that had been rained out earlier in the month. The evidence is not conclusive that it should have remained an exhibition.

[trdcrdkid]

For what it's worth, the following happened at the National League meeting on November 13, 1890, as reported on page 4 of the November 15, 1890 Sporting Life. By that time, the NL officially considered Pittsburgh to have lost 114 game in the 1890 championship season, which must have included the September 18 game. I haven't yet found the meeting at which the NL discussed the September 18 game and declared it a championship game rather than an exhibition, but it wasn't at this meeting.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

For what it's worth, the following happened at the National League meeting on November 13, 1890, as reported on page 4 of the November 15, 1890 Sporting Life. By that time, the NL officially considered Pittsburgh to have lost 114 game in the 1890 championship season, which must have included the September 18 game. I haven't yet found the meeting at which the NL discussed the September 18 game and declared it a championship game rather than an exhibition, but it wasn't at this meeting.

Thanks for looking. No idea where they got 114 from, but that could have easily been a mistake from the editor, since I've never read anything about them possibly having more losses than what is now accepted.

I knew about the 112 losses for quite some time now, but figured that was just a mistake. I didn't look into it because I had no idea where to start and whether it would just be a waste of time over an editing error.

Sure would love to find that banner!

[trdcrdkid]

I don't think it was a typo or a mistake by the editor. The flag was mentioned again in the November 29, 1890 Sporting Life (page 3), and it was again said to have 114 stars:

[Fred]

Could you imagine if someone went through all of the records and found that Roberto Clemente was credited with a hit that was actually changed to an error by the scorer at a later date.....?

[Butch7999]

Entertaining, yes, but ultimately pointless to argue it only here.
If you believe there's a case to be made for changing the official record, present your findings to Retrosheet / BBR.

[Fred]

Look what happened to Old Hoss for his 1884 season. Someone read a bit too much and there went that magical number....

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by Butch7999

Entertaining, yes, but ultimately pointless to argue it only here.
If you believe there's a case to be made for changing the official record, present your findings to Retrosheet / BBR.

I presented it here because I know it's of interest to people here and I was hoping to get more info. I have been talking to John Thorn, who is the official MLB historian and presenting him everything I have, exchanging ideas and we actually took it a different route because that game was accepted back then at some point as an official game after it was played, even though it was clearly a scheduled exhibition game.

The other route is based off the 114 star banner mentioned above. We found a mention in the 1891 Spalding Guide that said the Alleghenys lost 114 games and had a 6-13 record against Cleveland, which is not accepted as true today. They are credited with 113 losses and a 6-12 record. So maybe then, Cy Young could have had 512 wins...I present you with a "lost game from September 3rd in Altoona with the local paper calling it a "Championship game" which back then just meant regular season.

So I present to you, "loss 114" that was apparently accepted in 1890 by the league itself and 1891 by the league record keepers, but no longer counts as a game. For the naysayers for the original game, this is a tough one to argue against.

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by z28jd

We found a mention in the 1891 Spalding Guide that said the Alleghenys lost 114 games and had a 6-13 record against Cleveland, which is not accepted as true today. They are credited with 113 losses and a 6-12 record. So maybe then, Cy Young could have had 512 wins...I present you with a "lost game from September 3rd in Altoona with the local paper calling it a "Championship game" which back then just meant regular season. So I present to you, "loss 114" that was apparently accepted in 1890 by the league itself and 1891 by the league record keepers, but no longer counts as a game. For the naysayers for the original game, this is a tough one to argue against.

That is very interesting, but I would take with a grain of salt a local newspaper's description of a locally-played game a championship game. On page 106 of the Spalding guide, it does indicate that Pittsburg lost 114 games and had a 6-13 record against Cleveland, and it indicates that Cleveland had 45 wins (rather than 44). But in that same table, it lists Cleveland's record against Pittsburg as 12-6. On page 104 of that same Spalding Guide, Cleveland's record is given as 44-88, and Pittsburg's is given as 23-113. Then again, on page 136, Young's record is given as 10-7, rather than the 9-7 record he is credited with now. On the other hand, Sporting Life did not report the game among it accounts of championship games played during the week of September 3rd, and had not included it among "games to be played" that were listed for the National League in the previous issue. This is far from settled. I don't know what the League standards were for determining whether a scheduled game at a neutral site could be considered a championship game. It wouldn't surprise me if the League reviewed the records from some of these games shortly after they were played and then decided to throw some of them out of the records because of some shortfall in meeting standards.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by RUKen

That is very interesting, but I would take with a grain of salt a local newspaper's description of a locally-played game a championship game. On page 106 of the Spalding guide, it does indicate that Pittsburg lost 114 games and had a 6-13 record against Cleveland, and it indicates that Cleveland had 45 wins (rather than 44). But in that same table, it lists Cleveland's record against Pittsburg as 12-6. On page 104 of that same Spalding Guide, Cleveland's record is given as 44-88, and Pittsburg's is given as 23-113. Then again, on page 136, Young's record is given as 10-7, rather than the 9-7 record he is credited with now. On the other hand, Sporting Life did not report the game among it accounts of championship games played during the week of September 3rd, and had not included it among "games to be played" that were listed for the National League in the previous issue. This is far from settled. I don't know what the League standards were for determining whether a scheduled game at a neutral site could be considered a championship game. It wouldn't surprise me if the League reviewed the records from some of these games shortly after they were played and then decided to throw some of them out of the records because of some shortfall in meeting standards.

We will likely never know why they decided to specifically get rid of one game and add another, when neither appeared to be real games. As you said in a previous post, the two teams had a game that needed to be made up with Pittsburgh as the home team. Why would they pick a specific game out of two under the same circumstances and declare that was the made up game? That's acknowledging the fact that today it's listed as a makeup of the 9/5 rainout, yet noting that supposedly they played the 5/5 rain out over four months later when they could have played it back in May, or multiple times later.

That's the part to me personally that makes me think that neither should count. Also, the league had zero problem with teams not making up games, judging by the games played totals, which range from 129 to 138, so it's not like any team needed to have a certain amount for the league to be satisfied. Every team played exhibition games back then in season, so it seems odd that the Alleghenys and Cleveland, the two worst teams, are the ones they made judgment calls on for no apparent reason.

The league clearly got together at some point and decided 114 losses happened and spent money to "celebrate" it and the Alleghenys apparently how no problem accepting that fact because they hung it in a public place for all to see. The guide does have 113 losses listed, but you have 114 right there with a 6-13 record to show where that extra loss came from, plus a 10-7 record for Young as you pointed out.

What may have happened is when they went back over games to double check, they got rid of the one game but not the other. Was that on purpose, or an error? It's obvious that errors were being made in real time back then, so it's not hard to fathom that they were made at a later date and only one game was erased (or neither should have been).

Unless someone has something specific that says why such odd decisions were made, then you can make cases for Young winning 8, 9 or 10 games that year, with 9 wins only coming from the "well, that's what they decided" reason. Those people known as "they" got a lot of things wrong back then and a lot of it has been corrected over time.

[z28jd]

I would also add that it's wrong to just quickly dismiss the local paper saying "championship game", because they didn't write that for every game. That's rare to see at the top of a game story because there's no reason to write it in most cases. In my mind, they were noting that at the top for a reason and that's because it was played at a different location. This is the same paper that wrote exhibition game for the Sept 18th game and didn't even include a boxscore.

The 113 losses we recognize now could very well be right, but "they" included the wrong game out of these two contests. Something else to consider...

[Leon]

Nice research, John. I have a feeling there are a fair amount of inconsistencies in really old stats.

Originally Posted by z28jd

I would also add that it's wrong to just quickly dismiss the local paper saying "championship game", because they didn't write that for every game. That's rare to see at the top of a game story because there's no reason to write it in most cases. In my mind, they were noting that at the top for a reason and that's because it was played at a different location. This is the same paper that wrote exhibition game for the Sept 18th game and didn't even include a boxscore.

The 113 losses we recognize now could very well be right, but "they" included the wrong game out of these two contests. Something else to consider...

[ls7plus]

I don't buy into revisionism decades or even more than a century after the fact as adding accuracy. To me, this is nonsense. In cases other than this one, the stats were tabulated from the official score sheets, not the box scores. I don't believe the former are still available, although the latter probably most often are. Taking Ty Cobb's lifetime average down from .367 to .366 and Teddy Ballgame's rookie walk total down two (?) from 107 is sheer nonsense. This is simply the height of arrogance. The number in Cy's case is 511, plain and simple, in Cobb's, .367, and 107 rookie walks for Williams.

Highest regards,

Larry