The top 100 Pitchers Project Round 1: pre-1893

[jjpm74]

Please read first:

The 100 best of all time round 1: pre-1893

The purpose of this project is to ultimately find out who the 100 greatest pitchers are of all time. For round 1: pre-1893, we are looking to vote for 15 pitchers. This does not mean that anyone necessarily supports 15 pitchers from this or any other era. These 15 will be eventually combined with pitchers from other eras and whittled down to 100.

Ties will be broken using runoff polls.

Other periods that will be looked at separately:

pre-1893
1893-1919
1920-1946
1947-1968
1969-1985
1986-2008
The Negro Leagues and Pre Negro Leagues

Pitching prior to 1893 was much different than today. For starters, the pitching distance was closer. Pitchers also started out throwing underhand before switching to side arm throwing. There were also a lot less pitchers on a given team than there is today and a typical NL season saw 8 teams on average. The rival American Association's teams balooned and other rival leagues like the Player's League and Union Association diluted talent. Here is the breakdown of pitchers who pitched the majority of their careers (more than 66%) between 1871 and 1892. Below is a list of candidates from this era with a minimum of 100 wins.

The candidates:

Mark Baldwin
Tommy Bond
George Bradley
Charlie Buffinton
Bob Caruthers
Elton Chamberlain
John Clarkson
Larry Corcoran
Jim Creighton
Candy Cummings
Dave Foutz
Pud Galvin
Kid Gleason
Fred Goldsmith
Charlie Getzein
Ad Gumbert
Guy Hecker
Bill Hutchison
Tim Keefe
Silver King
Matt Kilroy
Jack Lynch
Bobby Mathews
Jim McCormick
Ed Morris
Dick McBride
Tony Mullane
Charley Radbourn
Toad Ramsey
Al Spalding
Harry Staley
Adonis Terry
John Montgomery Ward
Mickey Welch
Will White
Stump Wiedman
Jim Whitney
George Zettlein

Each Player’s wiki bio is linked above. In addition, some players have bios at SABR Bio Project and their statistics can be found at Baseball Reference.

National Association These are pitchers who pitched a minimum of 50 games from 1871-1875 and their wins, losses, era, era+ and WHIP. Some of these players had a couple of years in the NL, but the majority of their play came in the NA. During this era, most teams carried only 1 pitcher with a handful of exceptions. I included both NA and NL stats for these players and ranked them by WHIP. Players who had more seasons in the MLs are listed in the NL/AA/UA/PL list below. # means in the HOF:

 Player Wins Losses ERA ERA+ WHIP
#Al Spalding 253-65 2.14 142 1.186
Cherokee Fisher 57-84 2.83 107 1.219
#Candy Cummings 145-94 2.49 120 1.221
Dick McBride 149-78 2.85 115 1.245
George Zettlein 129-112 2.78 113 1.306
Jack Manning 38-27 3.16 82 1.350
Asa Brainard 24-53 4.84 74 1.696
Bill Stearns 12-64 4.98 67 1.739

NL/AA/UA/PL These players played the majority of their careers in the NL/AA/UA/PL and played in a minimum of 150 games as a pitcher. During this period, many teams carried 1-3 primary pitchers and the number of teams hovered between 6 and 8 per league on average until 1892 when the AA disbanded and the NL expanded to 12 teams:

Player Wins Losses ERA ERA+ WHIP
#John Ward 164-102 2.10 119 1.044
Jim Devlin 72-76 2.90 142 1.086
George Bradley 171-151 2.42 106 1.089
Tommy Bond 234-163 2.31 111 1.093
Larry Corcoran 177-89 2.90 123 1.105
Ed Morris 171-152 2.82 115 1.108
Will White 229-166 2.28 120 1.111
Charlie Ferguson 99-64 2.67 121 1.117
Terry Larkin 89-80 2.43 102 1.117
#Tim Keefe 342-225 2.62 127 1.121
Jim McCormick 265-214 2.43 118 1.132
Jim Whitney 191-204 2.97 104 1.147
#Charley Radbourn 309-195 2.67 119 1.149
Fred Goldsmith 112-68 2.73 107 1.153
Bob Caruthers 218-99 2.83 123 1.158
Guy Hecker 173-146 333 114 1.168
Dave Foutz 147-66 2.84 124 1.178
Sam Weaver 70-80 2.86 89 1.180
#Pud Galvin 364-310 3.07 107 1.191
Dupee Shaw 83-121 3.08 99 1.195
Henry Boyle 89-111 3.06 112 1.206
#John Clarkson 328-158 2.81 134 1.209
Jack Lynch 110-105 3.69 88 1.218
Ed Seward 89-72 23.40 108 1.218
#Mickey Welch 307-210 2.71 114 1.225
Charley Buffinton 233-152 2.96 115 1.234
Bobby Mathews 297-248 2.89 107 1.236
Tony Mullane 284-220 3.05 118 1.237
Toad Ramsey 114-124 3.86 117 1.243
Hugh Daily 73-87 2.92 108 1.246
Silver King 203-154 3.89 123 1.277
Lee Richmond 75-100 3.06 94 1.284
Charlie Getzein 145-139 3.46 99 1.288
Ed Daily 66-70 3.39 97 1.290
Ben Sanders 80-70 3.25 116 1.295
Hardy Henderson 81-121 3.50 98 1.298
Matt Kilroy 141-133 3.47 107 1.313
Dan Casey 96-90 3.18 112 1.313
Henry Porter 96-107 3.70 95 1.315
Stump Weidman 101-156 3.21 89 1.317
Jesse Duryea 59-67 3.45 109 1.333
John Healy 78-136 3.84 93 1.343
Harry Staley 136-119 3.08 106 1.353
Hank O’Day 73-110 3.74 97 1.354
Lee Viau 83-77 3.33 105 1.364
Bob Barr 49-98 3.83 86 1.370
Adonis Terry 197-197 3.74 103 1.372
Bill Hutchison 183-163 3.59 112 1.382
Scott Straton 97-114 3.87 98 1.382
Jersey Bakeley 76-135 3.47 95 1.387
Elton Chamberlain 159-120 2.19 112 1.392
Mark Baldwin 156-165 3.36 113 1.425
Kid Gleason 138-131 3.93 104 1.447
Henry Gruber 61-78 3.67 99 1.458
Frank Foreman 96-93 3.97 100 1.461
Ad Gumbert 123-102 4.05 95 1.488
George Haddock 95-87 3.81 94 1.496
Al Maul 84-80 4.43 96 1.520
Ed Crane 72-96 3.99 96 1.556

The Poll will be added 5/28 and run for TWO weeks. Ballots that do not have Fifteen choices selected will not be counted.

[The Dude]

1.Al Spalding
2.Charley Radbourn
3.Pud Galvin
4.Tommy Bond
5.Bobby Mathews
6.Tim Keefe
7.John Clarkson
8.Jim McCormick
9.Mickey Welch
10.Candy Cummings
11.Silver King
12.Larry Corcoran
13.Tony Mullane
14.John Ward
15.Dick McBride

[jjpm74]

Poll added. Feel free to discuss any choices in this thread.

[jjpm74]

I know this is a tough group to look at, but I'm hoping for some more ballots and feedback.

[The Dude]

The reason for the lack of voting, is that this era, unlike the rest, has a limited supply of good-calibre pitchers that everyone knows about. We all know of the top tier (Obviously those with 100%), but after that and a few more, these guys probably wont make the top 100, at least in my opinion, which draws away from the interest in really discussing these guys. I think in your previous thread about this group of pitchers, the good discussing already took place (Cummings et all).

[Paul Wendt]

The 22 people with two votes make a good "Top 22" but poor Bill Hutchison was awfully good for his few years at 55'6".

--
Do you mean the Tops at pitching or the Top players when they were pitching or the Top players who were primarily pitchers?

I have already cast a vote supposing the middle interpretation, Top players when they were pitching. So Dave Foutz's batting counts but John Ward's infield play doesn't count.

"Supposing the middle interpretation" doesn't mean that I applied it consistently. Creighton and Ferguson, two who died very young, were excellent batters like Caruthers and Hecker (better than Foutz). Probably their moments in the sun were long enough that they should be considered "Top players when they were pitching", at least, but I admit that I didn't consider them.

--
Dick McBride deserves support at this stage, at least on interpretation two or three. He was captain of the Athletics from 1864? to 1875 and the one fixture on the team. It was one of the best every year, like the Atlantics five or six years earlier with Pearce a fixture at shortstop. I support McBride for the Hall of Fame although with perhaps 2/3 of his career value before 1871 there isn't much occasion for it or much sense in it.

[RuthMayBond]

Not sure how much of their career has to be pre-1893, but I think Jack Stivetts & Sadie McMahon are ahead of the bottom-feeders here

[jalbright]

Maybe I'll be around later, if there are 15 pitchers worth voting for. I have a terrible time working up enthusiasm for more than about 10 of this group (maybe not even that many). Since the rules expressly state that if I want to participate, I must vote for 15, I choose not to participate.

[jjpm74]

Maybe I'll be around later, if there are 15 pitchers worth voting for. I have a terrible time working up enthusiasm for more than about 10 of this group (maybe not even that many). Since the rules expressly state that if I want to participate, I must vote for 15, I choose not to participate.

The whole point in the preliminary rounds is to come up with a list of the best 15 from each generation. The HOF support candidates come later.

Having people only vote for who they actually support would pretty much defeat the entire purpose and be just another redundant project that rehashes many before it as it's pretty obvious which ones actually have the support for HOF election already.

[BlueBlood]

Bond
Caruthers
Clarkson
Corcoran
Cummings
Galvin
Gleason
Keefe
King
Matthews
McCormick
Mullane
Radbourn
Spalding
Ward

I don't support half of these guys (as players) and could easily interchange my bottom five with five others.

[jalbright]

The whole point in the preliminary rounds is to come up with a list of the best 15 from each generation. The HOF support candidates come later.

Having people only vote for who they actually support would pretty much defeat the entire purpose and be just another redundant project that rehashes many before it as it's pretty obvious which ones actually have the support for HOF election already.

The problem I have is simply that I see this class as well short of 15 candidates I can even stomach in the discussion. That being the case, I'll pass.

[jjpm74]

The problem I have is simply that I see this class as well short of 15 candidates I can even stomach in the discussion. That being the case, I'll pass.

Which is why in round 2 it will be whittled down to 5 and there will be no set limit for votes.

[Paul Wendt]

Do you mean the Tops at pitching or the Top players when they were pitching or the Top players who were primarily pitchers?

I have already cast a vote supposing the middle interpretation, Top players when they were pitching. So Dave Foutz's batting counts but John Ward's infield play doesn't count.

"Supposing the middle interpretation" doesn't mean that I applied it consistently. Creighton and Ferguson, two who died very young, were excellent batters like Caruthers and Hecker (better than Foutz). Probably their moments in the sun were long enough that they should be considered "Top players when they were pitching", at least, but I admit that I didn't consider them.

Hi, it's lunch break, nap break, whatever
I'm still wondering about this. I voted for the top 12 in the standings. Number 13 is John Ward.
-1- tops at pitching per se?
-2- top player during seasons he was one of his team's primary pitchers?
-3- top player for his major league career, among important pitchers?
-4- top all around candidate for the Hall of Fame during his major league career? (That is DoubleX in 1904, I think, not jjpm74 on pitchers, I know)
-5- top all around candidate for the Hall of Fame? (That is the BBF Hall of Fame project, not appropriate here, I know)

On the first interpretation, Ward has a case for top 15 in this group. Moving down the list his case gets stronger. I think he belongs in the Hall of Fame on the third interpretation, not to mention the fourth or fifth. And there are not fifteen of those here, so only the first or second could make him legitimately marginal in this poll. I'm not sure which of the first three interpretations is intended or hoped for.

These interpretations make a big difference at least for Caruthers, Creighton (outside the majors), Foutz, Gleason, Hecker, McBride, Spalding, Terry, Ward --mainly up at the first two interpretations where all around play among pitchers is the heart of the matter, mainly batting. Between interpretation three and four is a big difference at least for McBride (captain/manager), Spalding (helping plan the Chicago White Stockings and the National League), and Ward (Players' Brotherhood and Players' League), probably Cummings too.

[jjpm74]

I'm hoping people focus specifically on the playing careers of these players and discount things like off field antics (yes, Ciccotte will see a poll), managerial careers, umpiring, and other contributing roles. The one exception is the pioneering aspect (invented a specific pitch, revolutionized the position, etc...) as pioneering roles should be considered. Other than that, I'll leave it up to individuals to decide whether they want to focus solely on pitching or the overall picture. I know that a number of these players were both pitchers and position players. For this generation, the roles of players were blurred so I don't see anything wrong with focusing on both their pitching and their position play for the hybrids.

[Chadwick]

I'm hoping people focus specifically on the playing careers of these players and discount things like off field antics (yes, Ciccotte will see a poll), managerial careers, umpiring, and other contributing roles. The one exception is the pioneering aspect (invented a specific pitch, revolutionized the position, etc...) as pioneering roles should be considered.

I would add a caveat to that. If a player's "pioneering aspect" didn't help his own performance on the field, it's not going to get any consideration from me. Curveball or not, for example, Candy Cummings still wasn't as effective as many of the guys in this poll. That other pitchers used the curveball to greater effect is not something, IMHO, that should affect an evaluation of Cummings as a pitcher.