Tim Keefe and Ferdie Schupp

[Buzzaldrin]

It disturbs me occasionlly when records and leaders are changed retroactively. Not when it's because of an error- like counting one game twice in Ty Cobb's 1910 seasonm which mistakenly gave him a batting title, but when it's just a change in qualifications that robs someone of an honor they had held for years or even decades.

Like Ferdie Schupp.

Ferdie Schupp, whom virtually nobody remembers, and who began to pitch regularly for the Giants midseason in 1916, posted an ERA that year of 0.90 in 140 innings (271 ERA+). He appeared in 30 games, joining the rotation for the last couple months of the season in time to start 11 games.

For many years after in baseball publications, Schupp was credited as the league leader and the man with the record ERA. Now, the rule is that a pitcher has to have one inning for each game his team plays to qualify as the leader, and retroactively Schupp fails there, as the Giants played 152 games in 1916.

Tim Keefe gets the benefit of this, since even though he only pitched 12 games and 105 innings in 1880, the Trojans played an 83 game schedule, which means he now qualifies for the single season record. I don't think this is fair. Does anyone here really think that a pitcher that appears in only 12 games, in ANY era, deserves an ERA title? Especially the all-time ERA title?

I don't. I don't know what a solution is, but a system that rewards Keefe and ignores Schupp at the same time is flawed. Either ignore them both or reward them both.

[KCGHOST]

I guess Schupp losing out doesn't bother me much. His honor now goes to Pete Alexander who is only one of the best there ever was on the mound.

I would agree that Keefe thing is a little more problematic, if not down right silly. Monte Ward pitches 5 times as many innings and loses out to Keefe?? Making award rules retroactive to the 19th Century is just tough. A totally different approach to the game.

[Paul Wendt]

Yes and no.

It disturbs me occasionlly when records and leaders are changed retroactively. ... when it's just a change in qualifications that robs someone of an honor they had held for years or even decades.

Like Ferdie Schupp.

Ferdie Schupp, whom virtually nobody remembers, and who began to pitch regularly for the Giants midseason in 1916, posted an ERA that year of 0.90 in 140 innings (271 ERA+). He appeared in 30 games, joining the rotation for the last couple months of the season in time to start 11 games.

For many years after in baseball publications, Schupp was credited as the league leader and the man with the record ERA. Now, the rule is that a pitcher has to have one inning for each game his team plays to qualify as the leader, and retroactively Schupp fails there, as the Giants played 152 games in 1916.

"... robs someone of an honor they had held for years or even decades."
"For many years after in baseball publications ..."
A year is a year, a decade is a decade. You and I were alive in some past decades but that alone doesn't importantly distinguish them from the current decade (of course) or from other past decades before our times.

Perhaps Ferdie Schupp earned some honor or title in 1916. Was he then recognized as ERA champion? (Earned run average, an official statistic from 1913 or so.) If so, then it is reasonable to recognize him as 1916 ERA champion today. If not, it's merely one baseball publication in one decade versus another baseball publication in another decade. That shouldn't be settled by which decade came first. Nor should the current decade always lose.

So this is a matter for historical research --not original research because it's been done, but research nevertheless.

Does anyone here really think that a pitcher that appears in only 12 games, in ANY era, deserves an ERA title? Especially the all-time ERA title?

Maybe. It depends. For example, it depends on the significance of 12 games in that time and place. It can't be anything absolute.

... a system that rewards Keefe and ignores Schupp at the same time is flawed. Either ignore them both or reward them both.

No. This doesn't make sense. After all, "reward" Keefe and "ignore" Schupp is what we would do if the current definitions of statistical category champions had been in place in their times!

If there is a compelling case for Ferdie Schupp as NL 1916 ERA champion,it must resort to the record of 1916. Read the writings or elicit the participation of someone who has researched the record of 1916, or go directly to that record.


All Time?

The "all-time title", if there must be one, is another matter. Rules for the 1876 to 2009 or 1871 to 2009 "title" can only be set in 2009, not in 1916. Nothing compels us to recognize as "all-time champion" the single-season champion whose title was derived from the numerically extreme achievement.

[Buzzaldrin]

Yes and no.

"... robs someone of an honor they had held for years or even decades."
"For many years after in baseball publications ..."
A year is a year, a decade is a decade. You and I were alive in some past decades but that alone doesn't importantly distinguish them from the current decade (of course) or from other past decades before our times.

Perhaps Ferdie Schupp earned some honor or title in 1916. Was he then recognized as ERA champion? (Earned run average, an official statistic from 1913 or so.) If so, then it is reasonable to recognize him as 1916 ERA champion today. If not, it's merely one baseball publication in one decade versus another baseball publication in another decade. That shouldn't be settled by which decade came first. Nor should the current decade always lose.

So this is a matter for historical research --not original research because it's been done, but research nevertheless.

The New York Times of Nov 28th, 1916 reads "Schupp leads pitchers. Less than one run per game scored off youthful Giant." Article begins- "Ferdie Schupp...was the most effective pitcher in the National League last season, according to the official averages compiled by Secretary John A. Heydler.

From the Sporting News the same year- "Ferdinand Schupp...made a new and remarkable record for pitching effectiveness in the National League in the 1916 season. Pitching 140 innings (140.1), Schupp allowed but 14 earned runs, or less than one earned run per game. He allowed but 79 hits in 140 innings. For effectiveness he therefore stands in a class by himself.

The 1923 Spalding record book has the section "Major League Record Holders 1876-1922", and under best earned run average since 1900 is Ferdie Schupp.

The Sporting News Record Book for 1929 has a whole paragraph about "Ferd Schupp's Great record". The Sporting News Baseball Guide and Record book for 1943, in the section "Outstanding Major League Records" has Ferdie Schupp and his 0.90 ERA listed under "lowest ERA, season, majors".

The "Official Encyclopdia of Baseball", by Hy Turkin and S.C. Thompson from 1956 has a list of the annual league leaders. Schupp is listed as the leader in 1916. No one else's ERA anywhen is lower.

This is a 40 year period. That's a lot of years to be recognized as the record holder.

(And as to the importance of Keefe's games- all of his starts were between August 6th and September 9th. On August 6th, 1880, the Trojans were 16.5 GB and on September 9th, they were 20 games out, so they weren't Doyle Alexander games exactly, they were an eating up the season and breaking in the new guy sort of thing. He basically pitched one month during his rookie season, and BR recognizes his ERA that year as the lowest all-time)

[Macker]

Another problem with Keefe's record is that ERA aren't even accurate for 19th century pitchers. Without play-by-play, we don't really know the true number of earned runs. The earned runs figures (& innings pitched) in some games are estimated. Those figures in the encyclopedias are merely good guesses for a lot of pitchers.