I know 19th century baseball is a different game altogether, but WOW!

[cjedmonton]

I was just killing time when I came across Albert Spalding's phenomenal 1875 season. Check out his record, innings pitched, walks, and strikeout total. Unbelievable. Also, his career W/L isn't too shabby either!



Albert Goodwill Spalding (http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/spaldal01.shtml)


Southpaw Legacy (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh)
My Southpaw Collection (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh/gallery)

[Glenn]

WOW. His 1875 year was great

55-5
52 Complete games
8 Saves, 7 Shutouts and a 1.52 ERA

[cjedmonton]

That has to be the motherlode of all seasons (with all due respect to Charley Radbourn). Also, how did he manage only 9 strikeouts in 575 innings? That's what amazes me the most, along with the 14 walks he surrendered.

Southpaw Legacy (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh)
My Southpaw Collection (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh/gallery)

[MetsFan11368]

Originally posted by Glenn
WOW. His 1875 year was great

55-5
52 Complete games
8 Saves, 7 Shutouts and a 1.52 ERA

Not to mention.....

AB 343
BA .312
RBI 56
SLG .373


I wonder how much George would be willing to pay him for his services today?

[sopclod]

Originally posted by cjedmonton
That has to be the motherlode of all seasons (with all due respect to Charley Radbourn). Also, how did he manage only 9 strikeouts in 575 innings? That's what amazes me the most, along with the 14 walks he surrendered.

Isn't this at the time when pitchers basically underhanded the ball up to batters? Also you had to throw like nine balls to issue a walk. In other words, saying it was a different game then is putting it mildly. Those numbers are meaningless by today's standards. Still, they are fun to look at.

[cjedmonton]

Well, I wouldn't call any achievement of this magnitude meaningless, otherwise you'd have to dismiss every modern day record due to the technological advantages and amenities enjoyed by today's players.
Every pitcher in the league at that time had to abide by the same rules as Spalding, yet no one else even came close to emulating his remarkable 1875 campaign. If those sort of numbers were "run of the mill", then perhaps you could chalk it up such limitations as the underhanded throw, 9 balls per walk, etc... If you look at any other pitcher during that timeframe, you'll see that his 1875 effort stands head and shoulders above the rest.


Southpaw Legacy (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh)

[Baseball Guru]

The year before in "84" he actually pitched 616 innings and gave up 753 hits:eek:

Not a typo, really 753 hits:laugh

I think that only John Coleman, who gave up 772 hits in 1883 gave up more hits in major league history....

[MetsFan11368]

Originally posted by Baseball Guru

Not a typo, really 753 hits:laugh



.....and with an ERA of 2.35 and only 11 SO's...is that bizzare or what?

[Jose Tartabul]

Originally posted by Baseball Guru
The year before in "84" he actually pitched 616 innings and gave up 753 hits:eek:

Not a typo, really 753 hits:laugh

I think that only John Coleman, who gave up 772 hits in 1883 gave up more hits in major league history....

Did walks and getting on base by an error count as a hit then?

[Eddie Collins]

The low strike out numbers were a combination of the following:

-Hitters can more easily make contact with the slower, undergand pitch

-Fouls weren't strikes

-the number of strikes for an out fluctuated between 3 and 4

-there was no "swinging for the fences" to result in more k's

[Brooksie]

Plus leading the league in wins for six straight years :eek:

[sopclod]

Originally posted by cjedmonton
Well, I wouldn't call any achievement of this magnitude meaningless, otherwise you'd have to dismiss every modern day record due to the technological advantages and amenities enjoyed by today's players.
Every pitcher in the league at that time had to abide by the same rules as Spalding, yet no one else even came close to emulating his remarkable 1875 campaign. If those sort of numbers were "run of the mill", then perhaps you could chalk it up such limitations as the underhanded throw, 9 balls per walk, etc... If you look at any other pitcher during that timeframe, you'll see that his 1875 effort stands head and shoulders above the rest.

Yeah, you're right. I always envision guys basicall throwing batting practice, or tossing it up there like when you have a family softball game. But as some have already pointed out, underhand doesn't necessarily mean slow or without some form of deception/movement.

[rudy]

I think SO stands for shoutouts, no? Doesnt that make more sense?

I was looking, but there doesnt seem to be a strikeout category.

How much would this guy go for in a fantasy league?

Did anyone else notice he only gave up 1 HR? I know they were rare, but one dinger in that many innings?

[Sashag]

Yes, for hitters, SO does stand for strikeouts. for pitching, SHO is shutouts. Here is a great stat, during the 1941 season, in which he played in 139 games and had 541 AB's, DiMaggio only K'ed 13 times. Just 13!!!! During that same season Teddy Ballgame played in 143 games had 456 AB's and K'ed 27 times. -Sasha

[bballfan]

WOW!! He started over 60 games 3 consecutive years, won more than 50 two years.

Wonder is his arm fell off in 1877 since he only had 1 start? Talk about overworked.

[ReignInBlood]

There was a ton of difference between their Runs Allowed and Earned Runs Allowed back then. :confused:

[billygoat]

No. 1875 was not a year where the pitchers underhanded the ball up to batters. The pitching was overhanded at that time and the catcher wore a crude glove and the first instances of first basemen wearing gloves started appearing. It was 9 balls to constitute a walk yes, but if the batsman wanted a high pitch and the pitcher delivered a low one, that was actually a ball (whether or not it constituted a strike by today's standards.)

[Barnstormer]

You also have to look at the dominance of the Red Stockings in those years. 1875 they were 71-8, an .899 winning percentage! Boston players totally dominated the offensive leaderboards - the team OPS+ was 151.

His winning percentage was .796, but the teams he played for during his 6 seasons of pitching had a WP of .789. You could say that since Spalding pitched most of his teams games, he is responsible for the success, but this wouldn't really be true - he probably had better run support for those 6 years than anyone in history.

[Cubsfan97]

Good job on us Cubs raiding that team the next season! lol. I still think Radbourns season was more impressive. I rank Spaldings at 2nd. Why was he deducted a win from 84 though?

[TonyK]

Many pitchers in his era also stood in the left side of the box (the batter's left) before pitching. After the running start, they would be throwing across their body from the 3rd base side of the box. To batters the ball looked like it was coming right at them, only to hook over the plate at the last instance. Eventually the box was reduced in size, and then later replaced with the rubber.

[It's Over The Wall!]

I was just killing time when I came across Albert Spalding's phenomenal 1875 season. Check out his record, innings pitched, walks, and strikeout total. Unbelievable. Also, his career W/L isn't too shabby either!


Hoss Radbourn 1884. Now.:lookitup

It Was The Better Season

It's Freaky He's My All-Time Fav Player

[Buzzaldrin]

No. 1875 was not a year where the pitchers underhanded the ball up to batters. The pitching was overhanded at that time

Pitching was exclusively underhanded until 1884.

[HDH]

POS T/B Team Name Name Year W L ERA G SV IP H HR BB SO
SP R/R PRO Hoss Radburn 1884 59 12 1.38 75 1 679 528 18 98 441
SP R/R LOU Guy Hecker 1884 52 20 1.80 75 0 671 526 4 56 385
SP R/R CHI John Clarkson 1885 53 16 1.85 70 0 623 497 21 97 308
SP R/R BSN Al Spalding (1) 1875 55 5 1.52 72 8 575 571 1 14 9
SP R/R STL George Bradley 1876 45 19 1.23 64 0 573 470 3 38 103

[Buzzaldrin]

Afraid you left off two of the absolute best seasons of the 1800's.

Clarkson's 1885 was NOT his best year. Clarkson's 1889 was better, people are just misled by the 1885 victory total. He not only won the triple crown in 1889, he led the league in wins by 21 GAMES. Tell me that's gonna happen again. You know what, if you go to the Baseball Prospectus site www.baseballprospectus.com and enter some names, you'll find that the ONLY pre-1900 season that, with all their adjustments for era and blah blah blah, still comes out as a 30 win season is Clarkson's 1889 campaign. Okay, you gotta take the BP thing with a grain of salt, but it's kind of fun anyhow (and you'll notice that Al Spalding never comes out with a single winning season in his whole career (his 55-5 becomes 13-18 with a 5.23 ERA).

And Amos Rusie in 1894. They moved the mound back partly out of fear of him, and he responded by posting one of the greatest pitching seasons in history, and when you consider he'd only had one year to adjust to the distance and it was the best hitters' year ever, well- his triple crown becomes even more remarkable.

[It's Over The Wall!]

POS T/B Team Name Name Year W L ERA G SV IP H HR BB SO
SP R/R PRO Hoss Radburn 1884 59 12 1.38 75 1 679 528 18 98 441
SP R/R LOU Guy Hecker 1884 52 20 1.80 75 0 671 526 4 56 385
SP R/R CHI John Clarkson 1885 53 16 1.85 70 0 623 497 21 97 308
SP R/R BSN Al Spalding (1) 1875 55 5 1.52 72 8 575 571 1 14 9
SP R/R STL George Bradley 1876 45 19 1.23 64 0 573 470 3 38 103

That Year Hecker Also Had A Game With 7AB 6Hits And 3HR! In 1884!
:eek:

[Larry Bigbie]

Pud Galvin had some amazing years

1884 W: 45 L: 22 CG: 71 (WOW) SHO: 12 IP: 636.6 BB: 63 S0: 369 ERA: 1.99
WHIP: .988

He pitched over 600 innings two years in a row (83: 656.3, 84: 636.3) over 500 innings 3 times (593 in 79), over 400 9 times, over 300 12 times, and except for his rookie and final year never pitched under 200 innings. Some of his career numbers: 646 CG and 57 SHO. He had a 15 year career and pitched just over 6000 innings (6003.3). Career ERA is 2.86, WHIP 1.191 and career BB of 745. Plus I just like Pud Galvin.

[SABR Steve]

The low strike out numbers were a combination of the following:

-Hitters can more easily make contact with the slower, undergand pitch

-Fouls weren't strikes

-the number of strikes for an out fluctuated between 3 and 4

-there was no "swinging for the fences" to result in more k's

You're right. After two strikes were called, the ump would give a sort of warning to the batter on the third strike. So it often took four strikes.

[SABR Steve]

Good job on us Cubs raiding that team the next season! lol. I still think Radbourns season was more impressive. I rank Spaldings at 2nd. Why was he deducted a win from 84 though?

Revisionists hard at work.

[SABR Steve]

Well, I wouldn't call any achievement of this magnitude meaningless, otherwise you'd have to dismiss every modern day record due to the technological advantages and amenities enjoyed by today's players.
Every pitcher in the league at that time had to abide by the same rules as Spalding, yet no one else even came close to emulating his remarkable 1875 campaign. If those sort of numbers were "run of the mill", then perhaps you could chalk it up such limitations as the underhanded throw, 9 balls per walk, etc... If you look at any other pitcher during that timeframe, you'll see that his 1875 effort stands head and shoulders above the rest.


Southpaw Legacy (http://www.geocities.com/cjraleigh)

Good analysis. From my research, Spalding threw heat but used various speeds to keep hitters honest. To be fair, however, he did have a strong offense to back him up. Not only that, the defense was the best there was. George Wright may very well be the most important shortstop in history, and Ross Barnes certainly revolutionized second base play.