Slightly O/T: Did Cy Young "Only" Win 510 Games?

[markf31]

From the Pittsburgh Dispatch September 19, 1890 which calls it as being a "championship game".

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by markf31

From the Pittsburgh Dispatch September 19, 1890 which calls it as being a "championship game".

The Dispatch did not include it in the final standings days after the season ended:

[markf31]

Originally Posted by z28jd

The Dispatch did not include it in the final standings days after the season ended:

Interesting.

I have this also, from the Dispatch dated September 17, 1890 states that the NL clubs would play in Canton the following day.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by markf31

Interesting.

I have this also, from the Dispatch dated September 17, 1890 states that the NL clubs would play in Canton the following day.

.

The final results from the Dispatch say 23-112, which is now 23-113 and it says 6-11 vs Cleveland, which is now 6-12, so the Dispatch did not include that game in the final standings, even though they may have said earlier that it was a championship game.

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by markf31

From the Pittsburgh Dispatch September 19, 1890 which calls it as being a "championship game".

Sporting Life also covered it as a League game in the September 27th issue of 1890 (page 2, column 1):

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by RUKen

Sporting Life also covered it as a League game in the September 27th issue of 1890 (page 2, column 1):

Those quotes I have above about it being an exhibition game are from the Sporting Life. That boxscore you posted there might be the reason it was identified as a regulation game, even though the previous issue ran the one quote and the subsequent issue ran the other.

[z28jd]

There obviously seemed to be confusion about this game when it happened, BUT you have four sources saying it was an exhibition game, even though two of them earlier said it wasn't. Here is everything in one post:

1. Sept 13, The Sporting Life/schedule (all games that were played)
2. Sept 19, Pittsburgh Press/game recap w/ no boxscore
3. Sept 20, The Sporting Life/game recap
4. Oct 4, Alleghenys President/quote
5. Oct 5, Pittsburgh Press/final standings
6. Oct 5, Pittsburgh Dispatch/final standings

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by z28jd

There obviously seemed to be confusion about this game when it happened, BUT you have four sources saying it was an exhibition game, even though two of them earlier said it wasn't.

But the final standings as reported in Sporting Life and the Spalding Guide had included that game in the standings. The fact that the Pittsburg team president felt compelled to complain (that the Canton game was supposed to have been an exhibition) suggests that there had been some decision made that this game counted as a championship game. Apparently it was supposed to be a makeup game for one that had been rained out earlier in the month. The evidence is not conclusive that it should have remained an exhibition.

[trdcrdkid]

For what it's worth, the following happened at the National League meeting on November 13, 1890, as reported on page 4 of the November 15, 1890 Sporting Life. By that time, the NL officially considered Pittsburgh to have lost 114 game in the 1890 championship season, which must have included the September 18 game. I haven't yet found the meeting at which the NL discussed the September 18 game and declared it a championship game rather than an exhibition, but it wasn't at this meeting.

[z28jd]

Originally Posted by trdcrdkid

For what it's worth, the following happened at the National League meeting on November 13, 1890, as reported on page 4 of the November 15, 1890 Sporting Life. By that time, the NL officially considered Pittsburgh to have lost 114 game in the 1890 championship season, which must have included the September 18 game. I haven't yet found the meeting at which the NL discussed the September 18 game and declared it a championship game rather than an exhibition, but it wasn't at this meeting.

Thanks for looking. No idea where they got 114 from, but that could have easily been a mistake from the editor, since I've never read anything about them possibly having more losses than what is now accepted.

I knew about the 112 losses for quite some time now, but figured that was just a mistake. I didn't look into it because I had no idea where to start and whether it would just be a waste of time over an editing error.

Sure would love to find that banner!