All Time Great pitchers queston

gregmo32

Here is a question that I don't know the answer to. How many pitchers in baseball history have won 100 more games than they lost? How many of those are HOFers? Anyone know?

fsjeter

Partial List

Name Wins-Losses

Lefty Grove* 300-141
Whitey Ford* 236-106
Christy Mathewson* 373-188
Roger Clemens 348-178
Randy Johnson 280-147
Grover Alexander* 373-208
Mordecai Brown* 239-130
Mike Mussina 239-134
Juan Marichal* 243-142
Greg Maddux 333-203
Eddie Plank* 326-194
Bob Feller* 266-162
Cy Young* 511-316
Tom Seaver* 311-205
Tim Keefe* 342-225
Warren Spahn* 363-245
Kid Nichols* 361-208
John Clarkson* 328-178 (with an astounding 53 wins in 1885 and 49 wins in 1889)
Old Hoss Radbourn* 309-195
Joe McGinnity* 246-142
Pedro Martinez 206-92
Walter Johnson* 417-279
Jim Palmer* 268-152

*Denotes HOFer

There could be more. Hope this helps get you started!

Scott

Edited to add: The only ones not in the HOF are the ones still playing.

SDSportsFan

The only others I found (not on fsjeter's list) are:

Al Spalding (HOF) 253-65
R.L. Caruthers 218-99 (not in the HOF) pitched from 1884-1892. As he pitched only 9 years, he doesn't meet the HOF's 10-year minimum career length.


Steve

gregmo32

(Also posted this on the other thread, but thought maybe it was better off here) I wonder if, eventually, the pitchers of this generation will be judged by different standards than their predecessors. Since the offensive numbers have increased and say, Fred Mcgriff, would look like a sure fire HOFer if he had played in the 50's, shouldn't it hold true inversely as well? That Mussina's slightly higher ERA and slightly lower win totals should be viewed in that context rather than simply against the previous era's?

coinkat

I would have thought Dizzy Dean would have made it...

gregmo32

I read in a book over the weekend that only one eligible pitcher with 84 or more wins than losses is not in the HOF. That kind of answers my question, but with even less stringent terms...

ziggy29

<< <i>The only others I found (not on fsjeter's list) are:

Al Spalding (HOF) 253-65
R.L. Caruthers 218-99 (not in the HOF) pitched from 1884-1892. As he pitched only 9 years, he doesn't meet the HOF's 10-year minimum career length. >>

Actually, he does qualify. He didn't pitch in 1893, but played 14 games in the outfield that year (he was quite an accomplished batter, and for most of his career he often played OF when he wasn't pitching). So he does have a total of ten different seasons in the majors.

<< <i> I read in a book over the weekend that only one eligible pitcher with 84 or more wins than losses is not in the HOF. That kind of answers my question, but with even less stringent terms... >>

I assume this means "modern era" (post-1900), since Caruthers won 119 more than he lost. Also Sam Leever (1898-1910) had a record of 194-100. He would qualify if you define the "modern era" as 1893 onward as many do, since that's when the mound was moved back to its present-day 60' 6".

stevek

If I gotta take one pitcher, in his prime, to win me a must ballgame, it's gotta be Koufax in my opinion.

bri2327

<< <i>I think it a crime that Sandy Koufax is not on that list, which is a great list by the way. While he didn't play long and his great years encompassed only a half dozen seasons, he dominated them as well as any pitcher dominated any era. >>



I think you should read what pitchers that list covers.

Pitchers with 100 more wins than losses. Koufax was 165-87 for his career. He did not have 100 more wins than losses, thus his exclusion from the list.

Same for Carlton. 329-244 is not 100 more wins than losses.

coinkat

Juan Marichal was very dominating as well... perhaps the most underrated on the list.