WS records which will never be broken

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Didn't Matty pitch 3 complete game shutout wins in one World Series? I was thinking this was around 1906 or 7? Can anyone help me here? Dan?

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Matty beat Eddie Plank 3 - 0 in Game 1, Andy Coakley 9 - 0 in Game 3 and Chief Bender in Game 5 by a score of 1 - 0. The Giants beat the Athletics 4 games to 1 as all five games were shutout wins (Bender won 3 - 0 in Game 2 and Iron Man McGinnity won 1 - 0 in Game 4).

I'd say that was pretty amazing.

[Archive]

Posted By: B Hodes

I think one of the first (if not the first) "World Series" was in 1884 between two major leagues -- the National League and the American Association. The National League champion was the Providence Grays led by the hitting of Paul Hines and the pitching of "Old Hoss" Radborne who won about 60 games in the regular season and then out-dueled future HOFer TIme Keefe and singlehandedly shutdown the original New York Metropolitans ("Mets" for short) throwing 3 consecutive Complete game shutouts while givintg up no walks as the Grays swept the best of 5 series 3 to zip.

.... Even Barry Bonds can't do that

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

wasn't the Temple Cup played in 1884?

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: David

The Mick going 2 for 4 while still passed out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

So does anyone think Old Hoss or Matty would've intentionally walked the likes of someone like Barry Bonds to protect their shutouts?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

If Bonds played during their era, no. Becuase stats were not the be all-end all they are today. If they pitched today, then probably, yes.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

Kevin,

Just a thought.

If ALL five games were shutouts, doesn't that make it less impressive?

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: B Hodes

As I recall the Temple Cup series were played between the top two National League teams in the 1890's after the demise of the American Association.
The AA vs. NL series of the 1880's was something different htat involved challenges between the each of the Leagues' best teams playing a series. The NL won more but the AA won occassionally too. (1887 -- ST. Louis Browns Champions on the Old Judge cards). I have a whole book about these 19th century post-season contests -- I could get anyone the info they are interested and maybe it could be found used on B & N , Amazon or Half.com.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

anyone else seen the pin that was given to the Browns players that won that title in 1887? The thing is absolutely stunning. Think ultimately ended up in the Copeland collection.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Cy:

Throwing three straight shutouts at any time is pretty impressive, but in the World Series even moreso. And look at the pitchers Matty beat (HOFer Eddie Plank 24 - 12 2.26 ERA; Andy Coakley 18 - 8 1.84 ERA and HOFer Chief Bender 18 - 11 2.83 ERA).

I will give you that the Athletics had no real superstar on their team at that time (Harry Davis, Danny Murphy and Lave Cross were their big guns), but they did score 623 runs during the season most in the American League that year so they could get guys across the plate.

Kevin

[Archive]

Posted By: Elliot

Brian, does this book have a name? thanks, Elliot

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Mathewson

...it was the 1905 World Series. A record which will never be broken. Three shut-outs in one series. I plan to throw a HUGE party in 2005 to celebrate the 100th Anniversary of Christy's MLB Unbeatable record.

He probably wouldn't attmept to walk anyone, even today, I doubt he would need to with his pitching and his fadeaway...

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Radbourne wouldn't have said he "won" 60 games; he would have said he piched "sixty games when his team won." The pitcher wasn't considered thre winner back then;
the team was.

So no, I don't think they w3ould have avoided picthing to Bonds. Hey, the Giants are winning the last one...

And HELLO, EVERYBODY! heard from Jay and Erik, Terry Kbouse, and Gary Engel. Nice to have a computer again.

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Matty never faced any hitters on steroids. I still say he whiffs Bonds with his fadeaway...

[Archive]

Posted By: jay berhens

steroids or not, you still need the talent and ability to hit the ball. You don't see any of the juice monkeys from wrestling hitting homers on a regular basis.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: Glen V

With the MLBs need for a star and the "if Bonds doesn't swing, it must be a ball" attitude of the umps, not even Matty could strike Bonds out today. Like a sports writer said toward the end of the season - "his strike zone is smaller than a laptop computer".

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H

Sorry i missed Eliot's question until tonight.
That is the title of the book about 19th Century "World Series" and the subsequent Temple Cup series... These are also covered in Nemac's (sp?) Encyclopedia of 19th Century Baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: B Hodes

While we are on the topic Barry Bonds 21-30 On-base perventage of .700 may be pretty tough to top for anyone who came to the plate more that 20-25 times...

I think he probably should have been series MVP -- even in a losing cause.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bonds prolly should have won, but can't really argue with Glaus either. He did have a number of key hits and the voters tend to want to vote for someone on the winning team rather than the losing team. If none of the Angels players had not had a stand out performance, then you would ahve prolly seen Bonds win it.

Jay

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Agreed that Bonds is great, but he gets walked and pitched-around so that he won't beat you single-handedly, and this inflates his OBP. Before someone beats me up on this do the math - walking someone intentionally four out of four times and leaving them stranded three times gives an OBP of .750, but pitching to them four times and having them hit one home run and make two or three outs is far more damaging but only gives an OBP of only .250 or .500.

If it wasn't a good idea, no one would intentionally walk Barry.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cy

Scott,

I don't understand why the Giants won't go out and get a great hitter(or two) to enhance Bonds. They have THE marquee player and they can't even get the most out of him (Can you believe that?). There is all this talk about re-signing Kent. Kent, shment, he's not that good. Why don't they let his contract go and pick up two of the following: Jim Thome, Vlad Guerrero, Larry Walker, Gary Sheffield. There are others. But I don't think many teams have the fear of the Lord in their minds when Kent steps to the plate. But just about every pitcher fears the four players I mentioned above.

Could you imagine the Giants with Vlad Guerrero batting 3rd, Bonds 4th and Thome 5th? And people actually argue that money doesn't solve problems. Bonds would have hit close to a zillion home runs with those guys in front and behind him. So all the Giants need is some cash to get Bonds, and the others, at their peak. But we all know that money doesn't build teams, right?

Cy

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd (nolemmings)

Any notion that Bonds' on base pct is overvalued should be viewed with an eye toward the fact that his World Series Slugging Pct was 1.39!!!!!!!!!! Top that. He is not only getting on base, he is averaging more than a base per AB when allowed to see a strike.

Scott, your statement that a 1-4 with a home run is "far more damaging" than a 0-0 with four intentional walks is certainly subject to debate. A solo HR scores one run, and frankly, it doesn't matter to the pitcher or the opponent how it scored. If Bonds scores 4 runs while never once swinging the bat, it seems to me he has caused at least as much damage as a guy who hit one home run in four ABs.

Whatever you think of Bonds, his numbers are stratospheric. If you project them over a regular season of 147 games (letting him rest 15 times), his totals would be: 84 HR; 168 runs, and 126 RBI, all while walking 273 times! And that's projecting from World Series competition against a top notch opponent. Keeping in mind that he plays in a park that produces the fewest HRs and he has marginal support behind him, Bonds' performance (in the Series and otherwise) is simply staggering.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I didn't say solo shot (or even mean to insinuate it) and I said 2 or 3 outs (implying, given his .370 ba that he know he will reach base more than 1 out of 4 times if pitched to). Remember, they only give him an intentional walk when it is appropriate (if the manager is worth his salt).

We could debate this all day long, but I will leave the fact that he is pitched around to speak for itself - I personally think that most managers in the ML's know what they're doing when they pitch around Bonds. Also, I agree with Cy that Bonds will see more pitches and hit more HR's if he has some protection; however, I think Aurilia and Kent (I'll take Kent over Sheffield any day) in front, and Santiago behind is pretty good - they did their share of damage in the play-offs this year. Also, it was proven that there is no "Bonds-proof" solution - you walk Bonds and Santiago hits a 2-run shot. It amazes me that Bonds can walk to the plate in situations where he knows he won't get a good pitch, then still have the concentration to be ready for the mistake and send it over the fence.

Heck, it's working for the Giants - if not for a lapse in Game 6, they'er World Champs.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I've got this funny niggling memory, but it won't take shape. Or maybe, there was some outstanding player in a losing cause (like Bonds), who a lot of people thought SHOULD have won the MVP.

I like what the S.F. Chronicle said about what the Angels looked like, comparing them to what the inventor of the microscope said he saw the first time he looked through his machine: "frolicking beasties."

Everybody ought to have an Eckstein...

[Archive]

Posted By: jeff s

Bobby Richardson in 1960.

I didn't check, but that's what John Miller said on the radio last night.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

I thought there was one...