Mussina needs 300 wins to get in. He doesn't have the hardware to make it in otherwise.

It will be the theory that 300 game winners are dead that will get him in if he finishes with 270-280. Plus the winning %. I didn't realize he had that many wins. Kind of like when Maddux hit 3000 K's. I was like, "you sure you don't mean 2k?"

It will be the theory that 300 game winners are dead that will get him in if he finishes with 270-280.

Which will be really odd considering Randy Johnson is now likely to reach the 300 mark.

I'm thinking that Mussina has enough left in the tank to get to 300 as well.

Not so much, now. When he's hall bound, voters will think there are hardly any or no 300 game winners out there anymore. And, I think he'll make it really close. Between 295 and 305 is my call.

And he should just make it to 3000 K's if he has 2 more seasons in him. Even 290/3000 is a lock.

I read the last bit about Gary Carter being "on the bubble," and figured I had no need to read anything else.

Mussina has enough left in the tank

Sorry, but I am officially declaring a worldwide moratorium on the phrase "left in the tank" to describe athletes, after hearing it over and over during the Olympics coverage. I mean, I've already announcers use this phrase in swimming, gymnastics, softball, rowing, basketball (men's and women's) and even equestrian (!).

Tanks for nothing.

Just out of curiosity, how many times has a writer/broadcaster mentioned "300 game winners are a thing of the past"?

Personally, I'd vote for him if he retired/died tomorrow.

Awfully hard to project another 30 wins for Moose. He's had an improbable recovery this season, but in '07 people had pretty much written him off as cooked. With any pitcher of this age, you have to take it year to year. 30 wins means he's going to (likely) have to pitch through 2011.

Also, who's employing him next season and beyond? The Yanks rotation will likely include Sabathia, Chamberlain, Wang, Hughes... not to mention, Kennedy. What if Pettitte and Mussina both want to come back?

i don't think hardware matters here. if mussina gets in, it is as the eddie murray or dave winfield of pitchers. longevity + high career value. never a dominant player, just a very good one for a very long time.

Looking at the list. After Mussina makes a run for it, it will be a while before it happens again. There is NOBODY with a shot over 120 wins right now. I was not expecting that.

i think if both mussina and pettite want to come back, you take pettite, since he's undoubtedly going to be wanting a 1 year deal to pitch in the new stadium and then retire.

frankly, moose has earned at least a 2 year deal and although he deserves it (and i like watching him pitch) i'd rather have pettite for 1.

sabathia, wang, chamberlain, pettite, hughes is a pretty nice starting 5.

He’s also a good guy who is media friendly

I thought it was just the opposite, not that it matters.

Sorry, but I am officially declaring a worldwide moratorium on the phrase "left in the tank" to describe athletes, after hearing it over and over during the Olympics coverage. I mean, I've already announcers use this phrase in swimming, gymnastics, softball, rowing, basketball (men's and women's) and even equestrian (!).

What about divers? Are divers allowed to leave anything in the tank?

What about divers? Are divers allowed to leave anything in the tank?

Air bubbles.

no 300 game winners out there anymore

Okay, I'll gamble. Buehrle + Oswalt + Sabathia + Webb. At least one of them will reach 300 before 12/31/2023. I'm asking 3:1. Any takers?

Okay, I'll gamble. Buehrle + Oswalt + Sabathia + Webb. At least one of them will reach 300 before 12/31/2023. I'm asking 3:1. Any takers?

I'll say that out of that quartet, Buehrle has the best chance. Assuming he wins two more this year, that's an average of 12 over 15 years. I think he'll do it.

I'd vote for him if he retired/died tomorrow.

It's good to be precise.

I'll say that out of that quartet, Buehrle has the best chance. Assuming he wins two more this year, that's an average of 12 over 15 years. I think he'll do it.

There's a good reason to bet against Buehrle. When he signed his deal last June, he intimated that he would hang it up a lot sooner than most people would think.

This is similar to when Don Mattingly, battling for the batting crown, batted leadoff in 1985 in the last game of the season. Manager Billy Martin wanted to give Mattingly more at bats to overtake leader Wade Boggs, who sat out the last four games of the season.

surprised nobody attacked that sentence there, Wade Boggs played in 161 games that season and started in 161 games. (his team played 163) and pretty much didn't miss a game in September or October. And of course Mattingly batted second in the last game of the season, and of course his .324 batting average really wasn't a threat to Boggs .368.


Of course it was probably a memory gaffe, as 1986 was the year that he was referring too.


I'm on the list of people that is tired of people complaining about there won't be any more 300 winners. as mentioned many guys have a chance and it's not like 300 is a common thing outside of the guys from the 70s. If Mussina pitches next year, then you almost have to assume he's going to do everything in his power to make it to 300, even if he has to hook up with a team that isn't competitive but needs the gate draw of a chase to 300 (Pirates?)

There's a good reason to bet against Buehrle. When he signed his deal last June, he intimated that he would hang it up a lot sooner than most people would think.

Well, I'm convinced I should change my answer then.

But seriously, even though pitchers are hurling fewer starts/innings per year, the very fact that we have so many guys in their 40's still going strong is evidence enough that there exists a counteracting balance.

even if he has to hook up with a team that isn't competitive but needs the gate draw of a chase to 300 (Pirates?)

That would be quite a shock for Mussina to see how the other half lives, as he hasn't pitched for a team that failed to score at least 800 runs since 1995. The Pirates, meanwhile, haven't scored as many as 800 runs in a season since 1940. So, while I'm not trying to denigrate his accomplishments - I think he's a HOFer - if wins are what he's after, and considering he hasn't won a title, he could probably find a contending team that might want him.

And he should just make it to 3000 K's if he has 2 more seasons in him. Even 290/3000 is a lock.

I don't want to live in a world where Mike Mussina is in the Hall of Fame and Bert Blyleven is on the outside looking in.

If great pitchers start regularly pitching effectively until they're in their early to mid 40s--which I think is entirely possible--those extra 3-5 seasons may help offset all the other factors that make 300-game winners less likely.

Randy Johnson had 230 wins through age 39. How many pitchers are on pace to reach that? Roy Halladay just has to average 13 wins a year until then.

Be assured, too, that if Moose is short of 20 victories near the end of the season, and the Yankees are out of the playoff picture, Joe Girardi and the Yankee organization will get Moose an extra start. This is similar to when Don Mattingly, battling for the batting crown, batted leadoff in 1985 in the last game of the season.

In some computer baseball simulator, when I was out of the race, I would pull my starting pitcher in the middle of the 5th inning with a big lead and replace him with Jim Lonborg, who'd get the last out of the fifth inning and get the "win". Are there any real-life examples of managers doing that to pad a pitcher's win totals? (Granted, the starting pitcher would be infuriated... I never had to deal with that though ;) )

I don't want to live in a world where Mike Mussina is in the Hall of Fame and Bert Blyleven is on the outside looking in.


2008......336......61.9%
2007......260......47.7%
2006......277......53.3%
2005......211......40.9%
2004......179......35.4%
2003......145......29.2%
2002......124......26.3%
2001......121......23.5%
2000......87.......17.4%
1999......70.......14.1%
1998......83.......17.5%

I think Bertie will get there.

Pitchers with 100 wins who have somewhat of a chance to still be active (based solely on my hunches) when Mussina is Hall-eligible:
Hudson (146 wins/ age 32)
Halladay (125/ 31)
Vazquez (125/ 31)
Oswalt (123/ 30)
Buehrle (118/ 29)
Sabathia (114/ 27)
Garland (103/ 28)

I don't want to live in a world where Mike Mussina is in the Hall of Fame and Bert Blyleven is on the outside looking in.

You won't. Blyleven's going in soon.

This is something I'll write about on my semi-dead site in the next few days, but do you know how many pitchers that eventually reached the Hall of Fame threw at least one inning for the Pirates since World War II? One: Goose Gossage in 1977. Blyleven's impending entrance to the Hall will improve them to four pitcher-seasons by eventual Hall of Famers in the past 60 years. Who's the best pitcher in the Pirates' long history, considering only years with the Pirates? Probably Babe Adams. Maybe Wilbur Cooper. The best pitcher they've had on the team since Blyleven left was who, Rick Rhoden? Doug Drabek?

Anyway, back to the topic...

Looking at the list. After Mussina makes a run for it, it will be a while before it happens again. There is NOBODY with a shot over 120 wins right now. I was not expecting that.

Can't be too sure. Some pitchers will have sustained peaks well into their 30s and last into their 40s. And I notice your 120 is carefully selected: Aside from Buerhle, C.C. Sabathia's at 114 and counting. He'll presumably be joining the Yankees for the remainder of his useful career, so it's just a matter of staying healthy. He stays healthy, he'll win 18 a year for the next seven, eight years and be well on his way.

Roy Halladay's 31, but he has 125 wins and might last forever; never know. Josh Beckett's 28 and has 88 wins; he could turn into Curt Schilling all through his 30s (but on better teams than Schilling's) and put a run on 300. See also Jake Peavy (though San Diego doesn't look like a great place to rack up wins, you never know). Ben Sheets could wake up tomorrow morning and suddenly be an iron man, join the Red Sox, and it goes from there. Johan Santana. John Lackey.

I remember reading somewhere about how Early Wynn spent 20 years on radio telling everyone that he would be the last 300 game winner, and it looked like he might be right... but then we had a whole rash of them in the 1980s. It's cyclical. Randy Johnson may or may not reach 300; I very highly doubt Mussina will get there. 30 more wins is a lot in modern baseball for an old guy. I think there very well could be a 15, 25 year run with no more 300 winners -- one generation of pitchers, basically -- but it's likely they'll come back sooner or later.

Could be wrong, though; baseball's moving slowly toward the six man rotation, not back toward the four man, so it's possible the 300 game winner is about to become extinct. Forever's a long time, though.

I happen to agree with the headline in very general terms, by the way. Usually Hall of Fame voters like to see four or five 20 win seasons, but for them--they're not terribly bright, as a group--there's likely to be a big difference between one 20 win season and zero 20 win seasons. I already see that cited as a black mark against Mussina--"he pitched for good teams and never won 20!". So I think it's quite likely, dumb as it is, that whether or not he reaches 20 wins this season could make the difference between Mussina giving a speech in Cooperstown or not. Or at least, between him waiting only ten years or so and waiting 20 or 25 or 40 years.

My feeling on Mussina is, if they didn't put Blyleven in, why would they put Mussina in? A lot of the same arguments people use against Blyleven work against Mussina too. "He was never the ace of his team", etc. (even though he was on the Orioles, of course, people just remember the Yankees years.) Blyleven had to wait most of his 15 year eligibility period, so Mussina probably will too.

Another question, while we're here. If Mussina does get a plaque, is it a Yankees cap, or an Orioles cap? I think it will certainly be a Yankees cap, but it probably should be an Orioles cap.

I still think there will be 300 game winners. There is just going to be a gap after Mussina. I don't know how long that gap will be.

Well, sure, but there was a sizable gap between whoever the last guy in the 1980s was to get there (Ryan?) and Roger Clemens, too... what, 15 years or so? Depends what you think is sizable. There was a long gap between Early Wynn and whichever 1980s guy got there first (Perry?), too.

I remember reading somewhere about how Early Wynn spent 20 years on radio telling everyone that he would be the last 300 game winner

Then we had 8 more, with 2 potentially on the way in the next 2-3 years. I love hearing players and announcers say that the era of this/that is dead. Then it happens again in bunches.

"It's good to be precise."

Initially, I only wrote "died", but then I thought that sounded a bit too morbid.

"...do you know how many pitchers that eventually reached the Hall of Fame threw at least one inning for the Pirates since World War II? One: Goose Gossage in 1977."

Close, but no cigar.

In some computer baseball simulator, when I was out of the race, I would pull my starting pitcher in the middle of the 5th inning with a big lead and replace him with Jim Lonborg, who'd get the last out of the fifth inning and get the "win". Are there any real-life examples of managers doing that to pad a pitcher's win totals?

Yes.

Thanks, Vlad. I knew I could depend on you guys to catch any oversights.

Is Bunning the only one I missed?

The real queston is who on the Yankees 25 man isn't a HOFer?

I remember reading somewhere about how Early Wynn spent 20 years on radio telling everyone that he would be the last 300 game winner, and it looked like he might be right...

I remember watching the Mets in the 1970s, WOR Ch 9, and halfway through the game the announcers would start going off on tangents, like how many 200 hit seasons Rose had versus Gehringer... and how no pitcher was ever going to win 300 games again and how it took Wynn FOREVER to get that last one... and meanwhile in the game at hand, Seaver was pitching against Carlton (or Sutton, or Niekro or Perry...).

I'm kind of on the fence about Cody Ransom. I think he needs another solid two years to emerge from the gray area.

"Is Bunning the only one I missed?"

He's the only one I can think of right now, but I could be wrong.

I went through the b-ref pages for the Pirates one by one, scanning with my eyes for hall of famers. Actually, I skipped the 1966-1969 Pirates (and also the 1978-1979 Pirates) because, for some reason, those pages wouldn't load (I think a particular ad was killing the pages). So at least I have an excuse for missing Bunning. :P

I don't think any other long-lived franchise has anything like the total historical lack of great pitchers the Pirates have. It's remarkable, really. The very greatest pitcher the Pirates have ever had, in terms of having a good pitcher at his peak for at least a couple years, was, like I said, Babe Adams or Wilbur Cooper, who are kind of in the Lew Burdette/Lon Warneke class of Could Be Hall of Famers But Aren't with about 15 or 20 other guys.

Well, if you go wayyy back, Vic Willis is in the Hall of Fame. (As is Rube Waddell, although he had only one full year as a Pirate.) And there's a healthy cluster of others - Adams, Phillippe, Leever, among others - who weren't quite HoF/HoM but definitely worth a careful look before you decide that.

For a single year in which you really can't complain about the starting pitching, how about 1984?

yeah, I only considered from 1901 forward looking at this. That's where I personally like to draw the 'modern era' line; just personal perference.

There's Vic Willis for a couple years, and Burleigh Grimes did two separate two year stints. Jack Chesbro spent the first four years of his career (1899-1902, I believe) with the Pirates but didn't became a great pitcher until he joined the Highlanders. (EDIT: No, he was a great pitcher for two years with the Pirates. It would be closer to reality to say he didn't become a really famous pitcher until he joined the Highlanders.) Waite Hoyt spent four years, I think, with the Pirates near the end of his career, in the 1930s.

But that's it. That's the cream of the crop for the franchise.

Hmm... just got me thinking. What non-expansion team has had the fewest post WWII HOF hitters?

And thanks to Baseball-reference.com, I can tell you the answer is.......

The Cincinnati Reds! Their 4 Post-war HOFers are: Bench, Morgan, Perez, Robinson.

In terms of fewest overall appearances, though, I have to assume it's the Tigers. They have 5 total, but that includes one season each Hank Greenberg, Larry Doby, and Eddie Matthews (to go with George Kell and Al Kaline).

The A's win in having some of the strangest members, Hall of Famers that I have no recollection of ever playing for them: George Kell, Nellie Fox, Enos Slaughter, Orlando Cepeda, and Billy Williams.

For expansion teams the Rangers and Mariners have zero, which I find amazing. In the next like 8 years, of course, the Rangers can add I-Rod, Palmeiro, and Sosa to it, while the Mariners get Griffey and Rickey... maybe Edgar and Vizquel if the voters are feeling frisky.

Justin Zeth: You missed the very first start of Dazzy Vance's career, with the Pirates, in 1915. It was... not very memorable.

I have to say, that is one of the strangest careers I've ever seen. A Hall-of-Fame starter who didn't win his first game until age 31???

Early Wynn was the last of the 300 winners - at least according to SI & TSN who ran major articles on it at the time.

And he should just make it to 3000 K's if he has 2 more seasons in him. Even 290/3000 is a lock.

Have career strikeout ever meant anything to the BBWAA? I doubt it. They are impressed by peak strikeouts because that means dominance. If someone who dominating in his peak has a long enough career (or was dominating enough, as ws the case with Koufax), he'll go in. If he never seemed dominating as a strikeout artist during his prime, career Ks mean nothing.

Blyleven had 3701 Ks and he's still outside. (Plus he had 287 wins, nearly up at the 290/3000 lock mentioned above).

Sutton and Niekro both struck out more than Walter Johnson. Combine than with 300 wins, and it still took them several tries to get in. Niekro also had to wait a few times with well over wins and 3300 Ks.

Ks got Nolan Ryan in, but that had more to do with all those 300 K seasons (and the over 5700 career ones) rather than 3000. By itself, 3000 means very little to the writers.

Mussina will be a lock if he gets to 290/3000. Being a lock is different from being a first balloter. Blyleven's going to go in, and was probably always a lock or close to it. It's just a matter of time.

Looking at the list. After Mussina makes a run for it, it will be a while before it happens again. There is NOBODY with a shot over 120 wins right now. I was not expecting that.

Well, ANdy Pettitte has a really lousy chance, but it's better than no chance.

He has 214 wins at age 36. Eleven guys have had at least 87 wins from age 37-onward in the integration era. That includes Kenny Rogers -- who was 5-7 with a terrible ERA at age 36. Since then people have predicted his imminent demise almost every year since then. David Wells is another - remember when people thought the White Sox were fools to trade for him? He was 38 then. Is Pettitte really a worse shot to win 86 than Jaime Moyer was to win 123 from that point onward. I'm not saying he'll win that many or that he's a good bet, but he's a better to do it than some who have recently don it.

At this age, Pettitte has about as many wins as Gaylord Perry, Warren Spahn, and Nolan Ryan.

Hall of Famers who have pitched for the Pirates.

Combined record: 400-315.

Ok, I missed a couple people. There is a chance of no significant gap between Mussina and CC. :)

Doc, might want to double check that link.

I think you guys are seriously overlooking Jamie Moyer's inclusion to the 300 win club after his age 52 season...

(I'm only half joking)

In the next like 8 years, of course, the Rangers can add I-Rod, Palmeiro, and Sosa to it, while the Mariners get Griffey and Rickey... maybe Edgar and Vizquel if the voters are feeling frisky.

If Palmeiro goes in, I will be shocked. I'm hopeful for Sosa, but not confident. And of course, A-Rod played for both teams and will be a first-balloter, but probably has 10 more years ahead.

Sosa will go in. He has over 600 HR, and no one has been able to connect him to steroids in any way other than "But he hit so many Home Runs!". By the standards of the BBWAA, he's likely to be a first ballot, and there's no way he has to wait longer than 3 years.

Palmeiro, on the other hand, has a failed test on his record, and was already viewed as marginal (even though he'd hit both BBWAA automatic standards of 500 HR and 3000 hits). If he goes is, it'll likely take him between 10 and 15 years - enough time for a whole bunch of new voters to join the pool.

does Honus Wagner count?

this is the list that Doc was trying to link

He’s also a good guy who is media friendly,

Who is he talking about again?

"The best pitcher they've had on the team since Blyleven left was who, Rick Rhoden? Doug Drabek?"

I was thinking about this last night, and if you include the bits where their careers overlapped, and restrict it to performances in black and gold, it's probably John Candelaria. If you count whole career, rather than just Pirate career, then you could make a case for Rick Reuschel.

Sosa will go in. He has over 600 HR, and no one has been able to connect him to steroids in any way other than "But he hit so many Home Runs!". By the standards of the BBWAA, he's likely to be a first ballot, and there's no way he has to wait longer than 3 years.

Well, there is that appearance in Congress, his incredible downsizing between the 04 and 05 seasons, and his jump in size and power during the 98 season. Jose Canseco also pointed a finger at him, and right or wrong, Juiced still carries sway with the writers. I'll agree that the case against Sammy is weaker than the one against, say, McGwire. However, I don't really hold out much HOF hope for either.

I was thinking about this last night, and if you include the bits where their careers overlapped, and restrict it to performances in black and gold, it's probably John Candelaria. If you count whole career, rather than just Pirate career, then you could make a case for Rick Reuschel.

Well, I think it's obviously Reuschel if you count whole career. But if we count only years with the Pirates 1981-present (after Blyleven was traded away) that takes away Candelaria as well, leaving us pretty much with Rhoden and Drabek. Just eyeballing the stats, Drabek probably gets a small edge...

Candelaria was better than Blyleven during their years together, too. I wasn't there, but I'd assume Blyleven was traded away because he was something of a disappointment in Pittsburgh, just looking at his ERA numbers.

No love for Bob Walk?

I'd call his a face only a mother could love, but honestly I'd want to check in with his mother before I did that, just to make sure I didn't erroneously commit her to anything.

"But if we count only years with the Pirates 1981-present (after Blyleven was traded away) that takes away Candelaria as well"

I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, though. He was part of the post-Blyleven team, and it seems odd to penalize him for the overlap.

If you do kick all pre-Blyleven Candelaria, then Don Robinson might be able to sneak into the conversation on his bat (though Rhoden was a pretty fair hitter as well). Eyeballing it, I think he missed too much time, but I'd want to run the numbers just to be sure.

Well, it was always arbitrary; I just wondered who was the best Pirates pitcher after Blyleven left. Might be more fair to state it as "after Candelaria left" since Candelaria was better than Blyleven with the Pirates. Do that and you knock out a few Rhoden years, and Doug Drabek stands alone.

No matter how you slice it, pitching-wise it's been a rough 30 years... 50 years... 100 years...

I doubt Mussina will get a single vote in Toronto after his complaints that a pre-game ceremony honouring Jays broadcaster Tom Cheek had lasted too long (Cheek had just missed his first games in over 25 years due to his father dying then being diagnosed with a brain tumour - heaven forbid the Jays honour him before a Mussina start).

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Baseball/MLB/2004/09/05/617180.html

The link also lists a lot of other reasons to dislike Mussina. I love the Davy Johnson quote - "Me? Go to the mound? With Mike Mussina pitching? I don't think that that is allowed."

The link also lists a lot of other reasons to dislike Mussina. I love the Davy Johnson quote - "Me? Go to the mound? With Mike Mussina pitching? I don't think that that is allowed."

I get that Mussina is not well liked. But I do believe he'll get into the HOF, although probably not for a few years. He'll obviously get in quicker if he gets to 300 (which I think will happen).

In fact, other than Mussina, only 20 pitchers in major league history have won 100 games more than their total losses – and all are currently in the Hall or (like Maddux, Pedro, Clemens, the Big Unit and Glavine) will be elected.

Bob Caruthers went 218-99.

Bob Caruthers went 218-99.

Umm, the 1800's don't count. In fact the only baseball player of note before Babe Ruth came along was Ty Cobb, and I would know, I saw the movie with Arliss in it.

There's no way that Moose gets into the Hall of Fame before MBV, Ride, Slowdive, or Lush.

This is just something that kicks around in my head from time to time, but I wonder... well, hell, I don't know. I was thinking about Cy Young. He holds the all-time record for career wins, of course, but most of those wins came in the 1890s, when the game was quite a bit different from the post-1901 game, particularly for pitchers. 267 of his 511 wins (just a tad over half) were in the 1890s. It's pretty arbitrary to draw the line at 1901, but I think probably Walter Johnson should be considered the 'modern' record holder for wins at 417. You could also make an argument 'modern' starts in 1920, in which case Warren Spahn's 363 would be the 'modern' record.

But mainly what I'm looking at is after about 1905 the league leader in games started would typically start around 40 games; during the 1890s it was more like 50 games.

I'm sure somebody here can explain to me why I'm being an idiot to even be thinking about things this way.

I'd love for Maddux to play just one more year to see if he can pass Spahn.

If Maddux had played this year on a decent team, he'd probably end the season right at 360. I don't know if he even cares, really, but the Pads have killed him this year with run support and blown leads. Not that he's been a great pitcher and it shows how arbitrary wins/losses are in a season, but he's got a decent ERA and has pitched some really nice games.


I do agree that counting all of Young's wins in career wins while every other stat gets demarcated at 1901 is weird. Is he the only guy that really straddles the era that significantly?

I think he's about the only guy that holds a significant career record that straddles the era line like that, yeah.

Do you know who the 'modern' record holder for losses is? Nolan Ryan!

They have to keep that record intact, or nobody would understand who the Cy Young in the Cy Young Award was.

Tongue 35% in cheek

Screw THAT - they should'a called it the Ol' Hoss Radbourn Award.

no one has been able to connect him to steroids in any way other than "But he hit so many Home Runs!"

Well, he wouldn't pee in a cup for Rick Reilly. I bet he'd be a first ballot lock if he'd just peed ON Reilly right then.

Records that have lasted a long time which IMHO COULD be broken:

1) Ty Cobb's Lifetime Batting Average
2) Team Wins in a season (2001 Mariners tied the 1906 Cubs mark)
3) Winning Streak
4) Owen Wilson's 36 triples in a season
5) Home Runs in a game

I do agree that counting all of Young's wins in career wins while every other stat gets demarcated at 1901 is weird. Is he the only guy that really straddles the era that significantly?

I think demarcating stats at 1901 is a pretty "recent" occurrence.
Cy Young had the record, he "always" had the record-and it was 511- growing up the only records I can recall this being an issue on were the single season wins record and the single season batting average record.
The MacMillan Encyclopedia I borrowed form the Library said those records were held by Chesbro and Hornsby. I recall discussing this type of thing (baseball records) with an uncle- who told me I was wrong about Hornsby - he got out an old book (or magazine) an din it was a picture of Ted Williams sitting on the bench next to an old geezer- the old geezer was holding a sign that said .438- "that's the record" said my uncle- that's always been the record.

The Geezer was Hugh Duffy, who BBREF says actually hit .440 not .438..., but anyway...

Justin: there is a fairly natural dividing line, and it's 1893. Between the 1892 and 1893 seasons, the switch was made from a pitching box with a front line 50 feet from home plate and a pitching rubber at 60'6". (I'm not sure when the mound was created.) In practice, that's about a 5 foot difference in pitching distance, but it made an enormous impact on the game - part of which comes from some other changes of the previous few years, including allowing overhand pitching. In the 1880's (and consider the 1880's to continue through 1892), it was common for pitchers to have 500 or even 600 IP in a season (and do check out Charley Radbourn's 1884 season). After 1893, the 500 IP seasons disappeared immediately, and only the greatest (or most overworked) of workhorses threw 400 innings. (Those wouldn't disappear entirely until some time after the turn of the century.)

Under 1880's conditions (team seasons of 120-130 games with the 50' pitching box) it was possible to rack up 300 career wins without having to have the career last all that long, and there were a bunch of 300 game winners under those circumstances: Galvin, Keefe, Clarkson, Radbourn, Welch - and Bobby Mathews's 297. After 1893, it became much harder to win 300. Among pitchers with peaks in the 1890's, there were only two 300 game winners: Young and Nichols. Both Young and Nichols did start their careers before the pitching distance change, but in both cases, the bulk of the career comes after.

If you see 1893 to 1919 or 1920 as one period (for the purposes of thinking about pitchers), there were six 300-game winners: Young, Nichols, Plank, Mathewson, Johnson, and Alexander (with both Johnson and Alexander lasting well into the next period.) Since we're now talking about a 30 year period, that's not the flood of 300-gamers from the 1880's.

There was one substantial change around the turn of the century (although it took until about 1903 or 1904 for it to be more or less complete, so I wouldn't use 1900 or 1901 as the boundary): the largest drop in offense in history, with run scoring eventually cut in half from its 1894 peak. Part of this was the foul strike rule change, which increased strikeouts, and part of it was the adoption and improvement of fielder's gloves.

300 game winners since 1920? The relatively isolated cases of Grove, Spahn, and Wynn, the cluster of 1970's peaks, and the cluster of 1990's peaks.

JPWF13: my first exposure to the kind of thing you're talking about in #77 came as Lou Brock approached Ty Cobb's career record for stolen bases. He passed Cobb - and then it became "but what about Billy Hamilton?" Of course, at that point, I had never heard of Sliding Billy. (Now I know who he was.)

Did I mention 1894 as a high water mark for run scoring? Sure, Hugh Duffy hit .440/.502/.694 - but the park-adjusted league context was .332/.405/468. Heck of a year, that was.

Is free agency helping guys get to 300 wins that wouldn't have been able to under modern five-man rotation, high-offense circumstances otherwise? I bet it is, because obviously with free agency the best pitchers are going to spend half their careers with a strong team. There wasn't anything Robin Roberts could do about the team he was pitching for.

the park-adjusted league context was .332/.405/468. Heck of a year, that was.

Ah, yes. The peak of the goat scrotum extract era.

I think demarcating stats at 1901 is a pretty "recent" occurrence.

Nah. Jack Chesbro got elected into Cooperstown on the strength of having the "modern" record for most wins in a season. The modern/ancient cut off was the turn-of-the-century. He went in during 1946.

The first HoF vote broke players into two groups - pre & post-1900. Young missed the original class because he was almost perfectly evenly in both groups. That vote was 1936 .

Baseball had little sense of its history before Cooperstown, so the 1900/1901 split is as old as a sense of modern/pre-modern in baseball's history.

I do agree that counting all of Young's wins in career wins while every other stat gets demarcated at 1901 is weird. Is he the only guy that really straddles the era that significantly?

Others straddle it, but clearly are on one side of it -- Willie Keeler lasted nearly until 1910, but his peak was in the 1890s. Ed Delahanty made it to 1903 when he famously died, but that means he's clearly a 1900 guy. Honus Wagner, & Nap Lajoie & Fred Clarke went into the 1890s, but were mostly 1900s guys. Jesse Burkett and Kid Nichols did hte opposite.

What makes Young so unique is how long he lasted - so he could have tremendous value on both sides.

The next best player to last a ways on both side would either be Jake Beckley or Bobby Wallace.

Of course, Doc meant to say that Delahanty was clearly an 1890's guy. The All-Decade outfield for the 1890's: Delahanty, Hamilton, and Burkett. (Delahanty and Burkett both played LF, but at the time LF usually had stronger defenders than RF, so that's not a problem.)

At the Hall of Merit, we're currently holding a ranking of all the left fielders we've elected, and it looks like Delahanty is going to come in third, after Williams and Musial. (He'll drop to 4th after our inevitable 2009 election of Rickey Henderson.)

Well, he wouldn't pee in a cup for Rick Reilly. I bet he'd be a first ballot lock if he'd just peed ON Reilly right then.

He'd get my vote.

I doubt Mussina will get a single vote in Toronto after his complaints that a pre-game ceremony honouring Jays broadcaster Tom Cheek had lasted too long

Mussina didn't complain about the length of the ceremony, he complained that the organization didn't A) hold it far enough in advance of the scheduled first pitch so that the game could start on time or B) inform the opposing team of the real, post-ceremony start time so that their starting pitcher wouldn't warm up in anticipation of pitching, only to find out the game wasn't starting when he'd been told it would. That whiny-ass, full-of-sh¡t Blue Jay fans feel the continued need to misrepresent the details of this "incident" years after the fact is pathetic beyond words.