100,000 Runs in Braves History – Almost!

The Braves are about to score the 100,000th run in franchise history, becoming the second MLB franchise to do (following the Cubs who got there in July 2019).

Entering the 2021 season, the Braves had scored 99,305 (FanGraphs) or 99,322 (Baseball Reference) runs since 1871, leaving either 695 or 678 runs to reach 100,000.

Through the Labor Day off-day, the Braves have scored 663 runs this season, meaning they’re just 15 runs from 100,000 over at Baseball Reference.

If only it were that simple.

The four runs the Braves scored in their second July 21st game against the Padres before it was suspended are already included in the running total at FanGraphs, so according to them the Braves have scored 667 runs this season. So instead of being 17 runs behind the Baseball Reference total, the FanGraphs total is currently only 13 runs behind, and the Braves are only 28 runs from reaching 100,000 at FanGraphs.

To complicate this further: If the suspended game is completed, those four runs will be assigned to July 21st in the record books, which means the Braves are only 11 runs short of 100,000 over at Baseball Reference. If the Braves score more runs when that game resumes, those runs will also go back to July 21st, meaning the Braves are even closer to 100,000, and we don’t yet know by how much! And, if the game isn’t resumed at all, it disappears and those four runs disappear! (Or do they?)

It gets better.

I emphasize franchise history, which includes seasons the Braves played from 1871 to 1875 in the National Association, since that’s part of Braves franchise history. But “MLB history” typically refers to official records according to MLB, which begins with the National League’s first season in 1876. (For this and other reasons, Baseball Reference separates the Boston Red Stockings first five years from the rest of Braves history, so they won’t acknowledge 100,000 runs there for a few more years.)

Also, you’ve already noticed the discrepancy between Baseball Reference and FanGraphs numbers above. Before 1950, FanGraphs has the Braves scoring 17 fewer runs than Baseball Reference does (for the Cubs, the FanGraphs total is larger by 40). In years where there are discrepancies, MLB uses the FanGraphs number most of the time, but not every time. (I’ll save the research and details for another day, but I am currently persuaded that Baseball Reference is more up-to-date with corrections, while MLB and FanGraphs are not. Please correct me if I am wrong!)

If you’re still reading, then you have the same love for big round numbers as milestones that I have, or you’re just interested enough to know when it will likely happen, so let’s get right to it.

With the Nationals coming to down, the Braves will reach 100,000 after their next:

  • 11 runs (Baseball Reference, including suspended game runs)
  • 15 runs (Baseball Reference, default)
  • 28 runs (FanGraphs, default)
  • 32 runs (FanGraphs, if suspended game is cancelled/removed)
  • Fewer than 11 runs if the Braves score additional runs in the suspended game!

The truth is we may never know which run is the actual 100,000th run scored in Braves history, but I’ll be highlighting all the potentials on Twitter, and circling back when/if the suspended game is resumed to identify any changes.

Stay tuned!


After scoring 8 runs Tuesday night and 2 runs Wednesday night, the next Braves run that scores will be the 100,000th run scored in Braves franchise history. In my opinion, this first iteration of the many I described above is the most reliable, so this is the one I will celebrate most as the official 100,000th run.

Author: Paul McCord

Father, husband, brother, son. Braves fan since the late '80s. Baseball is my happy place, even when it isn't going well. Fan of stats, fun facts, good stories, and (re)reading MLB's Official Rules and the MLB-MLBPA Collective Bargaining Agreement.

74 thoughts on “100,000 Runs in Braves History – Almost!”

  1. More info that didn’t fit with the Braves part of the article:

    The Cubs scored their 100,000th run in 2019 either on July 12th according to FanGraphs (8th run in a 10-4 win over the Pirates) or July 23rd according to Baseball Reference (first run in a 5-4 loss to the Giants).

    The Giants should be next to reach 100,000 runs, probably in 2024, with the Cardinals just behind, followed by the Reds, Pirates, Dodgers, and Phillies over the next few seasons. It’s no coincidence that the first eight teams to do it will be the eight National League teams that have been around since the 1800s. It’s also shouldn’t be a surprise that the Yankees will be the first American League team to do it, a couple of years behind the Phillies, with the Red Sox trailing a few years behind that.

    And, just for the “official MLB” record seekers still reading: The Cubs reached 100,000 runs as a National League team just last month, either on August 13th per FanGraphs (4th run in a 10-14 loss to the Marlins) or August 25th per Baseball Reference (4th run in their 5-2, Game 1 win over the Rockies). The Braves’ NL total probably won’t get there until 2026, and the Giants and Cardinals will beat us there.

  2. Looks like it would simplify your life greatly if the Braves would just go ahead and score 32 tonight.

  3. I read the (not a) recap and was sure JF had written it.

    Has anyone ever seen Jonathan and Paul in the same place at the same time?

    Nice article, Mr. McCord. I think it’s wonderful having another Mac on Braves Journal.

  4. Where are the Yankees in all this? They’re an old franchise. How do they not have 100K runs? Great writing, by the way, Paul.

  5. The Yankees weren’t a thing until 1901 — a couple decades after the teams he listed as close. Even with all of their success, they’re a ways off I’d imagine.

  6. Also, unrelated: The US Open (tennis) this year eliminated line judges. It’s all computers now. What else could benefit from that technology…hmmm..

  7. Today’s poll question: will humans be replaced by robots at home plate for ball and strike calls by 2025, 2030, 2035, or never?

  8. My guess: Significantly more technology will be used as part of ball and strike calls by 2025 or soon after, but it will be done in a way that keeps a home plate umpire in order to avoid reducing the number of umpires’ union jobs.

  9. @9 Unions eat their own. I don’t think guys that retire over the next 3-5 years are going to negotiate to let younger umpires into the gig at the expense of negotiating for things like more power or better benefits, no? I feel like the umpire job security problem fixes itself as umpires retire and they just simply don’t replace them.

  10. @10 More pay*. Must of been a Freudian slip considering I consider most umpires to have a Napoleon complex.

  11. 8 — Id say by 2030. Still a lot of bugs to work out with the robots as evidenced by the Atlantic League experiment. They likely will still need human umpires for supervision.

  12. As you might guess, I love this.

    But here’s the great thing… after almost 145 years of baseball, over 21,000 games, the Braves are just over 50 games over .500….

  13. I should reiterate that that figure excludes the National Association games. In the NA, the Boston Team was 225-60, three times farther over .500 than the other 145 years put together.

  14. Jeff reports Seitzer says that Ozzie made adjustments after being hit in the knee to avoid a repeat, and that he is pulling off the ball less now. Not sure how seriously to take that….

  15. Duval’s fine blast bales us out from an unimpressive first innings back home. Fried, location and costly throw to second. Riley flailing.Is it just me or does Freddie, a hard worked at bat, look exhausted? Shut up please, Chip. How about a limit of 2 cliches an inning?

  16. Multiple people in the lineup tonight end up at third off Freddie’s double. Not a criticism of FF, but a note about how deep it was.

  17. From the prior thread, I would not characterize Knuksie as a “late bloomer”. It only seems to fit because he didn’t debut until he was 25 and wasn’t a regular starter until he was 28. But in his first year as a starter, he led the league in ERA. And never slowed down from there. Granted that he was a great pitcher making most of his money into his 40s, but doesn’t seem like a “late bloomer”.

  18. Angel Hernandez is not a good ump, even when his mistakes benefit us. That curveball for the K was not a strike.

  19. @16, Thanks! (But I can’t quite get used to it. I’m still writing 5781 on my checks…)

    Sandy Koufax made half his total MLB pay in his last two years. I’m not sure there’s another Hall of Famer who did that… but I’m guessing.

  20. Tennis…Augur Aliassme is the only player in the Open allowed to play under an assumed name.

    Jonathan.. Guess? Never.

  21. Completely non-competitive pitches with two strikes. Except for the one foul ball nothing was close

  22. For those asking about the Yankees or other teams, check out comment #1 beneath the article. :) Yankees are the top-scoring AL team of all time, but not within striking distance of the top 8 NL teams that have been around since the 1800s.

  23. Helluva job. He had nothing and they left him in. Somebody must have poked Snit with a stick to let him know Matzek pissed away the lead. A fly ball pitcher with no command tonight and the ball carrying out is a great idea

  24. He had nothing from the opening batter and they leave him in there until the lead is gone. I just don’t understand it.

  25. Matzek’s 2.25 WHIP and 13.50 ERA in his last four outings is … concerning.

    Albies’ swing is … not concerning.

  26. @42

    It was. He does that occasionally versus soft-tossing righties, though not super often.

    Why in the world would Washington follow Espino with an even softer-tossing righty out of the bullpen?

  27. I had never noticed that before, but Francouer’s right (edit: and Nick too) – Ozzie had 5PA as a RHB against RHP this year before tonight. In previous years, he had 4 PA giving up the platoon advantage from the right side and one from the left. Counting tonight, in 11 career PA he has a walk, a single, and two HR. Of course it’s a tiny sample size, but it certainly doesn’t seem to be hurting.

  28. Back to Matzek for a second, this is why I did not jump on the Matzek for Closer bandwagon. This happening always struck me as a distinct possibility.

  29. @46 if your closer is getting “ugly” saves, you stick with him. It’s the blown saves/losses that require fixing.

  30. @50

    You did just cause me to go look and make sure it wasn’t Djokovic getting injured and having to retire. (It wasn’t.)

  31. @50

    Much consensus FBI were in the front row, just waiting to take him away, got bored, did not allow the match to be played out.. Playing under an alias banned by the LTA earlier this evening.

  32. @51 Smith was a lousy relief pitcher for a solid month. His season stats aren’t great either. He has 10 blown saves. A “save” is a stupid stat. If Luke Jackson or Matzek had been given 95% of “save” opportunities on a 1st place team they would have 30+ saves too. Yes, Matzek has been rough for a few games…..hopefully he gets it back together. The team needs him. I really hope Smith gets it together …..he has looked decent the last couple of days.

  33. The great thing about blown saves is that we can count them in non-closing situations.

    Smith has 4. Martin has 4. Jackson has 3. Rodriguez has 3. Minter has 6. Matzek has 1.

    It doesn’t have to be the 9th to blow a lead.

  34. Interesting news from Snit last night he plans to use Smyly today. My bet is, for obvious recent reasons, he’ll be under orders, nary a fastball. Like his relief outing in the last game in Colorado which impressed.

    If he does come in today under those conditions I find myself thinking along two positive lines. Ahead of time!

    One, against a young bunch of rookie hitters who showed last night they could hit the hard stuff his guile would bother them more.

    Two. More importantly, if this works out today Snit will effectively have potentially created a new experienced reliever to add to our arsenal instead of showing him the door, wasting a man who can no longer be trusted to throw hard. He’s done it the only time he was asked to (Game 4 Colorado).

    Let’s check him out.

  35. Will Smith is my least favorite Brave on this team and it’s not close. Someone is going to get hit by the Nats today.

  36. There was an old pitcher who slung’em
    but also sporadically hung’em
    not easy for Snit
    who’d dithered a bit
    then look what he found among’em.

  37. @59 I think many of us tend to agree. That was a bush league move to hit Soto last night. Maybe don’t give up a majestic tape measure homer and the dude wouldn’t have pimped you. There are no limit of reasons to dislike Will Smith and last night was just another on top of the heap.

  38. Unless Ozzie pimped his HR, which I didn’t notice, I’d think it would be Freeman. In the absence of RAJ, he’s the Braves’ closest equivalent to Soto if the Nats want to send a message. Wonder what Freeman and Soto were talking about at first after Soto was hit.

  39. Because of no reason whatsoever, I wondered how often Ted Williams was hit by a pitch. It seems the ’40s, ’50s and ’60s were more civilized times, not yet influenced by the managerial style of Don Mattingly.

    Ted Williams, the best hitter I ever saw, played 19 years and was plunked 39 times. The Kid had a lifetime OBP of .482. Through 19 seasons of major league baseball, Williams got on base not quite every other plate appearance.

    Please file this under Stuff I Never Wanted to Know and Still Don’t. You are welcome.

  40. Shockingly I’m not a fan of robot umps, ever.

    All of you that love the catcher framing and all that jazz, all that will be gone.

    The fact that this is even being discussed proves that millennials and zoomers ruin everything. Get off my lawn.

    P.S. I’m only 46.

  41. Chief

    Why this recent preoccupation with outing you age?

    At your age
    life’s but a single page
    forty more
    you couldn’t get it all in the door.

    Shockenly, to use your term.

  42. Bring on the robot umps, I say. If you can eliminate–or at least decrease–the impact of human error, you do it. The “human element” that umps bring to the game has never interested me.

    And I’m 53.

  43. Catcher framing is just working the ref — it’s incentivizing players to maximize a skill that results in the wrong call being made on the field.

    How is that different from flopping?

  44. Catcher framing is insidious and idiotic, and has caused teams to no longer believe blocking balls in the dirt is particularly important. I’d institute robot umps just to get rid of it even if it meant the robots still blew calls.

  45. I should clarify — I tend to start from a pretty old-school and curmudgeonly position. I’m anti-DH, though I know I’ve lost that fight. I’m anti-banning defensive shifts. But I’m pro-celebrating on the field, pro-stealing and swinging on a 3-0 count with a big lead, pro-sunscreen and resin, and pro-getting the call right. The video replay review system has a lot of serious problems, most fundamentally that it allows umpires to continue allowing the wrong call on the field to stand. If robots can improve on the (roughly 95-99%) accuracy of humans, then let’s move to robots.

  46. @69 – I understand your point, but as a matter of degree, faking an injury to influence the wrong call being made feels way different to me than fudging the eye’s perception of the “out-of-bounds line.” If the strike zone existed in reality— if there were an actual box with an actual width to its lines so we could see, like in tennis, if the ball objectively caught any little edge of it—I think I might agree with you. But ofc. the lines are imaginary, and different for every hitter. And while I get that of course the tech accounts for that, I’m still okay with it being a judgment call for that reason. Like, we’re just supposed to accept Trackman’s perception of precisely where Ozzie Albies’s knees end as objective reality because Trackman said so? Idk, it just feels weird to me to automate something as ethereal as the strike zone, I guess.

    Also, I have no idea if this is true broadly, but it seems like ball/strike calling has improved in this era of mega-evaluation and strike zones imposed on every broadcast, and that’s enough for me (though if I’m wrong here obviously that will sound pretty dumb).

    In any case, I understand others’ frustration. Fundamentally, pitch-framing vis-a-vis the foibles of human perception etc. etc. is one of those things that makes baseball interesting, to me, but I understand that might well be a minority view.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.