Old Hoss Radbourn - Stats inconsistency?

[h2oya311]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by scooter729

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]

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]

Originally Posted by triwak

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]

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]

Cool. Thanks, guys!

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by bwbc917

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]

Originally Posted by z28jd

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]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

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]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

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]

Originally Posted by Mountaineer1999

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.