Early ERA Titles: A Reexamination of Pre-1951 Qualification Standards

In December 1958 one W. Reich from Sacramento wrote a letter to The Sporting News requesting clarification of the minimum playing time criteria for determining the ERA leader.

Recently I was looking over the books I had acquired from The Sporting News, and I discovered that three pitchers were credited with winning the earned-run-average crown even though they did not throw the required 154- inning minimum.

I am referring to 1943 in the National League, when Howie Pollet won, pitching 118 innings; 1945, when Hank Borowy won, pitching 122 innings; and 1950, when Jim Hearn won, pitching 134 innings.

Why are these three given credit for the leadership? And if they are legally the leaders, then why wasn’t Ferdie Schupp given credit over Grover Cleveland Alexander’s 1.55, and why wasn’t Tom Zachary, who had a 12-0 record with an ERA of 2.47 in 1929, given the honor over Lefty Grove, who posted a fine mark of 2.82?

The Sporting News responded with an answer that has by now become the conventional wisdom.

The 154-minimum in determining the ERA leader has been in effect only since 1951. Before that the requirement was ten or more compete games. Pollet pitched 12 complete games in 1943, Borowy hurled the route in 11 in 1945, and Hearn also had 11 in 1950. Schupp in 1916 pitched only eight complete games. Alexander hurled 38. When Zachary had his 12-0 record in 1929, he twirled the distance only seven times, while Grove had 21 complete games to his credit.

Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom regarding the pre-1951 criteria—that from the introduction of ERA as an official statistic the minimum criteria for the ERA leadership was 10 complete games—is misleading and not applicable in a surprising number of cases.

The NL introduced ERA as an official statistic in 1912; the AL followed one year later. After the close of the season, each league would release its list of the league’s pitchers ordered by ERA, with the lowest ERA heading the list. But the two leagues approached the minimum ERA qualifying standards completely differently. Because the senior circuit consistently used a standard that more closely resembles The Sporting News explanation above, I will summarize the history of its minimum criteria first.

From the introduction of ERA as an official statistic, the NL used an objective standard to crown its champion. In 1917 the NL adopted the 10-complete game criteria noted in The Sporting News response. In its season-end presentation of the official statistics, the NL listed those pitchers who met the ERA minimum criteria according to ERA from lowest to highest. In a secondary listing, the NL listed those pitchers who failed to meet the minimum. The NL took six years to settle into the 10 complete game minimum; I have outlined the criteria for the first five years below.

• 1912: 15 games pitched
• 1913: 5 complete games
• 1914: 15 games pitched
• 1915: 15 games pitched
• 1916: 12 games pitched

The NL clearly recognized the lowest ERA that topped its list with the ERA title. This includes the three ERA leaders with relatively few innings pitched referenced in Reich’s letter: Pollet, Borowy, and Hearn. The only pitcher that met the NL playing time minimum not recognized today as the ERA champion is Ferdie Schupp for his 1916 season (0.90 ERA, 140 IP, 8 CG, 30 G).

As I pointed out in an article in the 1996 Baseball Research Journal, however, this is a latter-day oversight that should be rectified: Schupp was clearly and widely acknowledged as the leader at the time, a broad recognition that remained in place for many years thereafter. For example, in the 1943 Sporting News Baseball Guide and Record Book, Schupp was credited with the “Lowest Earned-Run Average, Season, Majors.” It was only post-WWII that his ERA title gradually faded from some of the record and reference books because (1) it was forgotten that the criteria was not 10 complete games when first introduced, and (2) there is something unsatisfying about a single season record that fails to meet present­ day minimum playing time requirements.

The AL introduced ERA as an official statistic one year after the NL in 1913 and only sporadically had what could be considered an objective criteria prior to 1946, when it finally adopted the 10 complete game standard as well. While lack of an objective minimum sometimes led to uncertainty and confusion regarding the annual leader, it also had the theoretical advantage of permitting a more reasoned determination of the league leadership.

Until 1919 the AL simply listed its top pitchers by ERA without identifying a minimum standard for inclusion. A check of the record shows that the lists included all pitchers with at least 6 to 15 games pitched depending on the year. Not surprisingly this led to a number of controversies almost immediately­ although fewer than one might now assume because the best hurlers all pitched a lot. In 1915 Smoky Joe Wood, currently recognized as the ERA leader, pitched 157 innings and 10 CG to head the AL ERA list at 1.49, edging out Walter Johnson (1.55 ERA, 337 IP, and 35 CG). In their commentary on the league’s release of its pitching statistics, The Sporting News and the New York Times both recognized Wood as the ERA leader. The Reach Guide, while recognizing Wood as the leader, also wished to acknowledge Walter Johnson’s overall fine season.

The American League pitching averages for the 1915 season give the leadership to Joe Wood of the world champion Red Sox, who allowed an average of 1.49 earned runs per game during the season of 1915. The leader was really Walter Johnson, who allowed an average of 1.55 earned runs per game. Wood pitched in 25 games and 157 ½ innings while Johnson participated in 47 games and 336 2/3 innings.

Without some objective criteria for listing the pitchers, the Reach Guide continued to struggle with how to define the pitching leader. In 1918 when Walter Johnson nominally finished second (39 G, 325 IP, 1.28 ERA) to Red Faber (11 G, 81 IP, 1.22 ERA), nearly all sources naturally credited Johnson with the title. A year later, however, when discussing Johnson’s 1919 league-leading ERA, the 1920 Reach Guide bizarrely credited Faber with the 1918 ERA leadership, noting that in 1918, “he then finished second to Faber.”

In 1919 the AL finally introduced an objective criteria for listing its hurlers and began including only those pitchers who met the criteria in its primary listing. Unfortunately, they chose an obviously unsatisfactory standard: 45 innings pitched. The next year they switched to 10 games. In a peculiar decision, the AL switched back to 45 IP for 1921, despite the fact that the 10 game criteria kept Duster Mails (9 G, 63 IP) and his 1.85 ERA from topping charts above Bob Shawkey, rightfully credited with the ERA title. After one year back at the 45 IP minimum, in 1922 the AL finally adopted the 10 CG standard introduced in 1917 by the NL.

Implementation of the 10 CG standard by the AL in 1922 should have ended any confusion. Inexplicably, however, in 1925 the AL reinstated the 45 IP criteria. Again, this is particularly bizarre given that the 10 CG minimum eliminated obviously undeserving pitchers in two of the previous three years. The AL proved fortunate over the next several years, as all the ERA list leaders pitched a substantial number of innings, generating little controversy.

When the annual ERA leaders are displayed in some more recent reference books, a footnote is occasionally attached to Wilcy Moore’s 1927 title, remarking that although he did not hurl 10 complete games, an exception was made due to his 213 IP. But this rationale is incorrect; the AL had no such 10 CG standard, so no exception was needed. In fact, a check of the contemporary papers reveals no discussion of any exception for awarding the title to Moore. For example, The Sporting News opened its commentary on the official AL pitching averages: “Wilcy Moore, recruit of the New York Yankees, was the most effective pitcher in the American League during 1927.” The article made no reference to his complete games.

In 1929 New York Yankee hurler Tom Zachary finished 12-0 with a 2.47 ERA and 7 CG in 120 IP. Zachary bettered Lefty Grove, currently recognized as the ERA leader for his 2.81 ERA in 275 IP. However contemporary sources all awarded the title to Zachary. The Sporting News headline over the release of the official AL pitching statistics read: VETERAN TOM ZACHARY OF YANKEES WAS LEADING A.L. PlTCHER OF YEAR. The subtitle continued, LEFTHANDER, WITH BEST EARNED RUN RECORD, WON 12 GAMES AND LOST NONE; GROVE, SECOND. The Sporting News Record Book for 1930 recognized Zachary under the category “Best earned run average” for the AL. A check of the daily newspaper headlines reveals a similar sentiment. For example, the New York Times asserted, “Zachary, with 2.47 Earned-Run Mark, led the American League Pitchers.”

Monte Pearson, still today credited with the 1933 ERA leadership, led the AL pitching lists with an ERA of 2.33 in 135 innings pitched. Like Zachary, contemporary sources awarded the title to Pearson despite relatively few innings pitched when compared to the fourth­ place Mel Harder with 253 IP (there were two intermediate relievers with over 100 IP). It is significant that in bestowing on Pearson the title, none felt it necessary to emphasize the fact that he completed 10 games; it was simply not a requirement in the AL.

In fact, while Pearson was clearly recognized as the leader, at least some sentiment again leaned toward recognizing the best overall performance as well. “Although younger pitchers came to the fore in earned-run effectiveness in the American League in 1933, it is Robert (Lefty) Grove of the Athletics who appears as the champion hurler of the season, according to the official averages released yesterday [Grove finished fourth in ERA among those who would qualify today with a 24-8 record],” opined the New York Times article on the AL pitching averages.

That today Pearson retains his 1933 ERA championship, while Zachary lost his long ago, is only explainable when looked at in light of the fact that as more comprehensive and widely distributed record books were published after World War II, the 10 complete game minimum was retroactively applied, even when not appropriate.

The next few years produced no disagreements as full-time pitchers turned in the lowest ERAs. In 1938 Ivy Andrews technically led the AL list with an ERA of 3.00 but pitched only 48 i1mings. Lefty Grove, second on the list with an ERA of 3.07 in 164 innings, was not surprisingly awarded the title without any mention of the lightly used Andrews. While there was no mention of a 10 CG minimum, The Sporting News invoked a 100-IP benchmark when they declared “second place in the earned-run yield among the hurlers in 100 or more innings went to Joe Krakauskas of the Washington Senators.” It is noteworthy that Krakauskas pitched only 121 innings and 5 CG.

The Sporting News found itself in somewhat of a dilemma the next year when the AL pitching statistics put Marius Russo first at an ERA of 2.41 in 116 IP with 9 CG and Grove second at 2.54 in 191 IP. Not unexpectedly, Grove was crowned the champion. The Sporting News did not specifically address any criteria, merely noting Russo worked “in only 116 innings as compared to Grove’s 191.” After conferring the ERA title on Grove, the Chicago Tribune simply stated that Russo “really was the leader in the earned run column, but pitched 75 fewer innings than Grove.” The Washington Post reported, “Russo’s earned run average was 2.41, but he was not a regular hurler.” Again, no mention of any 10-CG standard.

Reporting of the 1940 AL official pitching statistics clearly clarifies the lack of any 10 CG minimum in the AL. Ernie Bonham led the AL list with an ERA of 1.91 in 99 innings and 10 CG; Bob Feller finished in second place on the list with an ERA of 2.62 in 320 innings. If a 10 CG minimum existed, then either Bonham would have been given the title or there would have been some explanation as to why an exception was being made. In fact, Feller was awarded the title, and the accounts made no mention of any 10 CG minimum. The Sporting News reverted to its 100 IP minimum, stating that Feller “led the league in low earned-run allowance, with 2.62, for hurlers in more than 100 innings.”

The 1941 Spalding-Reach Official Base Ball Guide discussed the ERA title as well: “Ernie Bonham of the Yankees ranked first on the list in earned runs with 1.91 per game, but he pitched in only a dozen contests, so the real leader, of course, was Feller with his 2.62 record for 4,3 games.”

The New York Times summarized the quirky way in which the AL listed its pitchers, again without any reference to a 10 complete game standard:

By reason of a curious method in the American League which lists in its first group of pitchers all hurlers who took place in at least 45 innings, the name of Ernie Bonham of the Yankees actually appears on top with an earned run average of 1.91.

However, the Yankees’ crack rookie took place in only twelve games and so, despite this excellent record, top ranking must go to Feller, who appeared in 43 games, winning 27 and losing 11.

While several pitchers tossing less than 100 innings topped the official end-of-season AL lists over the next few years, none led to any ERA title disputes. The leading “regular” pitcher was awarded the title with little or no mention of the titular list leader. In 1944, when two relief pitchers, both with over 100 IP, led the list, they received minimal reference. All reports of the ERA race declared Dizzy Trout and his 2.12 ERA in 352 innings the leader. and they obviously felt no rationalization was necessary. The Sporting News dropped any de facto reference to a 100 IP minimum, while others simply referred to regular pitchers, even if not explicitly defined.

In 1 946 the AL finally adopted the 10 CG standard, which put the two leagues on the same basis. Five years later in 1951, after three relatively low innings pitched ERA leaders in the NL over the previous eight years, the major leagues finally adopted the modern standard of one inning pitched per team game. (For the purists, I will note that the wording—but not the substance—of the criteria has changed a couple of times since.)

In awarding the ERA title prior to 1951, contrary to conventional wisdom, the minimum playing time criteria was not 10 complete games in a surprising number of seasons. The NL did not adopt the 10 complete game standard until 1917, five years after the introduction of ERA as an official statistic, but they did have an objective minimum standard during each of those five years. And every pitcher who finished atop the primary list from the introduction of ERA as an official statistic in 1912 until the current standard was adopted in 1951 was regarded by contemporary sources as the league leader.

In contrast, the American League did not permanently introduce an objective standard until 1946, when they finally adopted the 10 complete game minimum. Prior to that (except for a few years in the early 1920s) the AL simply had no objective standard. And in the subjective evaluation, complete games were never more than an ancillary consideration. As is clear from the sources quoted above, innings pitched and games were assigned much more weight. When awarding the title to Moore in the one case and not to Bonham in the other, contemporary sources made no mention of any complete game exception­ complete games were simply not part of the AL ERA title award criteria. Furthermore, the subjectively considered playing time minimums fluctuated mildly overtime.

All in all, the misapplication of the 10 complete game standard back to all pre-1951 seasons does not much alter the present crowning of the annual ERA leaders. With the obvious, exception of Schupp, and the possible exception of Zachary, no clearly recognized ERA leader of that period has lost his title. Nevertheless, for a better and more complete understanding of historical earned run averages, it should be recognized that the minimum qualifications for the ERA title often differed from the current retroactively applied standard.

DAN LEVITT is the co-author of Paths to Glory, winner of the 2004 Sporting News-SABR Baseball Research Award. He manages capital markets for a commercial real estate firm.