Who's in the Hall of Fame? T206 pitchers

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Subject Won Loss ERA<br />A 201 177 3.08<br />B 189 109 2.59<br />C 182 106 2.28<br />D 249 205 2.63<br />E 195 126 1.82<br />F 197 116 2.79<br />G 198 132 2.68<br />H 212 127 2.46<br /><br />Of the 8 subjects above, 3 are not in the Hall of Fame. Can you pick out which 3 solely based on their major pitching career stats?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>A, D, G are the worst but Im sure thats not the answer <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marc S.</b><p>quite a few things....<br /><br />one of them being that those stats largely should not be the (only) basis for consideration in HOF voting.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Without digging for a book to look in, C looks like Reulbach's numbers, he isn't in, but should be.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Shawn Chambers</b><p>Because I pull for several KY players as future HOFers...the "F" stats sure look like Tannehill's to me!<br /><br />Shawn

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry Rucker</b><p>B would be Deacon Phillippe

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>I don't know if any of them should be in but the one w/249 wins should not be IMHO (if I'm correct that it is Willis).<br /><br />Actually, it's arguable that the three worst pitchers of the lot are all in the HOF. Marquard is surely "A" and Chesbro would be "G". If Marquard won 18 of 19 instead of 19 (or 20?) in a row he'd never have got in. Same for Chesbro if he won a game or two less in 1904. Willis must just have been a heckuva nice guy to have been voted in.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>The answer is B (phillipe), c (reulbach), and f (tannehill)<br /><br />Just looking at those stats I'd rank'em from best to worst:<br />C, B, E, H, F, G, D, A

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>The HOFers<br />A Marquard<br />D Willis<br />E Walsh<br />G Chesbro<br />H Bender<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>fkw</b><p>The one stat that has always astonished me ever since I was a kid...<br /><br />Ed Walsh had a loosing record in 1910 (18-20) and led the league with 20 loses..... all with a league leading 1.27 ERA and 258 SO's <br /><br />How the heck can you lose 20 games when you only give up 1.27 earned runs and 5.8 hits every 9 innings??? Wow!<br /><br />I put him in the HOF just for the freaky stat <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>The owners really had it in for Ed Reulbach, they shuttled him off to the Federal League, and then limited his appearances...<br /><br />My recollection is that in the EXCELLENT article about Ed in Bill James' fine first Historical Baseball Abstract, Bill observed that in every year Ed pitched, his hits and walks allowed totaled less than innings pitched, each and every year... And that is a feat that no pitcher in the Hall of Fame could claim.<br /><br />I used to think that the Hall could be "fixed" by adding a few, like Ed, and some others. But of late they've added so many that don't belong, the whole thing is shot.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Frank, I haven't read the original "Historical Abstract" in years and I don't recollect article you mentioned but Reulbach's walk and hit totals were not less than his innings for his career. He did accomplish that feat in his rookie year and he has one of the lowest hits per nine ratios in history but his control was not quite good enough to keep his WHIP below one.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated</b><p>Chesbro, Marquard (and to a lesser extent Willis) have relatively weak career numbers for HOF pitchers.<br /><br />Both "Rube" and Happy Jack" got elected in the pre-SABR era so legends and memories trumped cold hard stats (which weren't even available until about 1969-70)<br /><br /><br />Chesbro had a very short career for a HOFer (11 yrs) which included 2 great seasons and an exceptional lifetime winning percentage. In one of those seasons (1904) he set the so-called "modern" single season win record. He's sort of the pitching equivalent of Roger Maris. <br /><br />Marquard's case is weaker. He started with the Giants who paid big money for him as their new Matty and after a few season set a record (or it was recognized as such) for consecutive wins that was a very big deal for many years. After he won 20 games for them for 3 years in a row he drifted towards mediocrity but stayed in the majors long enough to eek out 200 wins.<br /><br />Willis oddly enough got elected after stats took over and was rescued for oblivion even though his numbers didn't really separate him from a number of pitchers from his era (1890's-1900's) who never got in. His election while perhaps more justified in hindsight is more perplexing to me than those of Chesbro or even Marquard.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>Marquard finished with a lifetime ERA of 3.08 and was also one of the best strikeout pitchers of his era, leading the National League with 237 strikeouts in 1911, and finishing in the top five four times (1911, 1912, 1913 and 1921). Marquard also finished in the top ten in ERA four times (1911, 1912, 1913 and 1916) and the top ten in wins five times (1911, 1912, 1913, 1917 and 1921). Marquard’s 1,593 strikeouts stood as the National League record for left-handed pitchers for 17 years, until it was eclipsed by Carl Hubbell in 1942, and at the time of his retirement ranked 3rd in Major League history among lefthanders (behind only his namesake, Rube Waddell, and Eddie Plank).<br /><br />In addition, his three years from 1911-1913 were among the best of any pitcher in history. Marquard led the Giants to three straight pennants from 1911 through 1913, during which he won an amazing 73 games (24 in 1911, 26 in 1912 and 23 in 1913). Marquard’s .774 winning percentage (24 wins and just 7 losses) and 237 strikeouts were best in the National League in 1911 and a record for lefty hurlers that stood for 50 years until Sandy Koufax topped him with 269 strikeouts in 1961.<br /><br />Marquard takes a lot of grief about getting into the Hall of Fame, but he was an excellent pitcher and his admission, though not overwhelmingly obvious, was certainly deserved. <br /> <br /><br /><br /><br><br>_ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ <u> </u> _ _ <br /><br />Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for my blog, interviews, articles, card galleries and more!<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Howard,<br /><br />Your response pointing out the error of my hits plus walks notion provoked me into finding the book and reading what it said...<br /><br />Bill James' Historical Baseball Abstract, the OLD one, not the revised one...<br /><br />Ed Who? is the article, on pages 73 and 74. I'd like to retype the entire article, but in fairness to Mr. James you guys need to buy copies of the book. It is quite affordable on ABE and Alibris, and insanely cheap once you're aware of its content.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Ed is one of the Dangerfields of baseball history, a player whose name commands little respect today and , proportional to his accomplishments, drew little respect when he was active."<br /><br />Ed is the only pitcher other than Lefty Grove to have lead the league in winning percentage for 3 consecutive seasons.<br /><br />Ed pitches both games of a double header against Brooklyn on Sept 26, 1908, getting complete game shutout wins. He threw a shutout the previous start, and in his next start, then 5 innings of scoreless relief 2 days after that. 44 consecutive scoreless innings in September during that fierce 1908 pennant race. Forgotten.<br /><br />in the 1982 BRJ of SABR, Cappy Gagnon quotes Baseball Magazine as describing Reulbach as "one of the brainiest players" and as having the finest curve ball in either league.<br /><br />3 years at Notre Dame studying engineering, then after his playing days he studied law at Columbia.<br /><br />Founding director of the Baseball Fraternity, secretary in 1914 and 1915, and that was what got the owners down on him.<br /><br />185-104 record for Ed is better than these HOFers...<br />197-128 Chesbro<br />197-126 Walsh<br />193-142 Waddell<br />160-97 Joss<br />201-177 Marquard<br /><br /><br />Lifetime ERA of 2.28 was 11th best all time, when James wrote. On line at Baseball Almanac he seems to be 16th, but above him are Jake Weimer, Tommy Bond, Will White, and the great John M. Ward, 19th century hurlers. Babe Ruth is a fraction better than Ed.<br /><br />Detractors point to his walks... he wasn't worst in the league. At that time pitchers pitched around hitters more, I think. Ed threw only 2 wild pitches in 1907. I think he had all the control he wanted. What he did do was allow less than one hit an inning in every season of his career, an accomplishment that no Hall of Fame pitcher can claim. I envision that he didn't mind walking someone, since he wasn't going to give up many hits anyway.<br /><br />Ed defeated Brooklyn 9 times in 1908, James suspects that to be a singular accomplishment. <br /><br />Ed threw a one hitter in the World Series, the best mark in limiting hitters until Don Larsen's fine no hitter.<br /><br />He had a 12 game winning streak in 1906, a 14 game streak in 1909, making him the only NL of the 20th century to have two streaks of that length. And probably the only pitcher to win 14 straight in an off year (he was 19-9 that year, off for Ed).<br /><br />Ed threw a 20 inning 2-1 complete game victory, the longest complete game win in history. He also won an 18 inning complete game by the same score.<br /><br />Ed missed part of the 1910 season because his son had diptheria. He received limited play at the end of his career because of his support for the Baseball Fraternity.<br /><br /><br />Mr. James then mentions that Ed battled life off the field, he went through a fortune helping his son fight illness, a battle lost in 1931. He was then forced into bankruptcy. "He died on July 17, 1961, and for the last time was robbed of a decent headline. Ty Cobb died the same day."<br /><br /><br />Ed for the Hall of Fame.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>This is outstanding - thank you for taking the time to post this on Big Ed, -and Bill James work, by the way.<br /><br />Regarding your statement on the book...may I reveal myself so naive as to ask what is ABE and the other acronym you mentioned? Are those online bookstores for out of print books or something of the sort?<br />thanks!<br />Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>ABE and Alibris....<br /><br />Two of the better online search sites for old books. All books.<br /><br />Tens of thousands of booksellers worldwide list books... it is great if you're a bibliophile!!!<br /><br /><a href="http://www.abebooks.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.abebooks.com/</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.alibris.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.alibris.com/</a><br /><br /><br />If you're looking for a used book, these places are fantastic. A few times I've seen a book on eBay, bid, get outbid, rebid, outbid again... by now the price is working its way up there, I check on ABE and bingo, there's the book for half of what it is on eBay, and they'll ship now, rather than after the auction ends.<br /><br />If your spouse is mad because you have stacks of books all about the house, then you might need to stay away from these sites.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Good stuff Frank. It's hard to make a case against Reulbach being a HOFer.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>the only case I can make is that I haven't accumulated enough of his cards yet!<br /><br /><br />Edited to add:<br />Thank you Frank!<br />great stuff, I will check it out.<br />though, you are correct regarding the potential for negative spousal response!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Frank, I don't deny that Reulbach was a fine pitcher and probably great for a few years but he does not strike me as a hall of famer. The 2.28 ERA, while excellent, is as much a product of Ed's time as his ability. He pitched his entire career in the dead ball era and had a short decline phase as his career ended relatively early. Maybe that was in part because of an owner vendetta but his numbers were in decline already and I'd guess that his heavy drinking had more to do with it (Bill James mentions the drinking in the revised Abstract). <br /><br />Three of the pitchers that you compare Ed's won-lost records to (Walsh, Joss and Waddell) actually had better ERAs and the other two (Marquard and Chesbro) don't belong in the hall, IMO.<br /><br />The nine wins against Brooklyn in 1909 are, frankly, unimpressive. Brooklyn was a disastrous team winning 53 and losing 101. They weren't even the worst team in the league, however. St. Louis went 49-105 and Ed won three games against them. Of his twenty-four wins in 1909 half came against historically bad teams. Ed made only seven starts against the Giants and Pirates who the Cubs had a tight pennant race with. In contrast Jack Pfiester started thirteen games against them. Do you think Ed would have led the league in won-lost percentage if he hadn't pitched against the weaklings so much?<br /><br />Addie Joss, btw, also gave up fewer hits than IP each year of his career but that was only nine seasons. Rube Waddell would have done it but for giving up seventeen hits in fourteen IP as a twenty year old rookie. <br /><br />T-206...I remain unconvinced about Marquard's hall of fame credentials. A 3.08 ERA sounds good but it was barely below the league ERA of 3.17 during his career. The fact that he ranked high at one time on the strikeout list for lefties is largely because of the paucity of lefty pitchers from his era. Plenty of right handed starters were ahead of him. Also, finishing in the top ten in any category in an eight team league is hardly a qualification for the hall of fame. Chuck Finley was in the top ten several times in the categories you mentioned and he sure isn't a hall of famer. Lastly, his seventy-three wins over a three year period was hardly amazing for the time. Today it would be but back then it was surpassed many times.<br /><br />Really, nobody's right and nobody's wrong. It just hinges on what you believe the hall of fame to be. It is what I love about baseball..there is always a debate to be had.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Howard<br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Howard, you're correct about Addie Joss and his hits to innings pitched. Mr. James must have overlooked him.<br /><br />You have great company in not thinking Ed should be in. The various HOF committee's over the years are with you on that. <br /><br />Seems to me he was one great pitcher whose stats suffered because of the owners. And in a time with Kirby P and Gary C can get in, Ed should have been in long ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Frank, we are exactly on the same page on that. If those guys are in then Ed should be in (as well as a few others). Some people look at who's in the hall and figure that if player A is in then player B should be also and that makes sense. I guess I look at it the other way around: if Ron Guidry (my favorite) and Ed Reulbach are not in then Rube Marquard and Jesse Haines should not be in.<br /><br />Howard<br /><br />P.S. - if the HOF committees agree with me I might have to rethink my position : )

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated</b><p>I am also a big Reulbach fan so please consider the following as more of an explanation for why he isn't in the HOF than a criticism of his merits.<br /><br />As a general rule there are 2 avenues to the HOF for players:<br /><br />1) Big careers with gaudy lifetime numbers accumulated over the long haul. For pitchers the primary example is win totals and the "magic" number of 300. So far every pitcher who has reached this threshold has been inducted. (Roger Clemens may test this rule, but we'll leave that for another day) Even pitchers who were not generally regarded as "great" or "the best" at any point in their careers who reach this milestone get in -- see e.g. Don Sutton, Phil Niekro, and (from what I've read) Pud Galvin and Mickey Welch.<br /><br />2) Short term dominance; truly great seasons; carrying a team, setting records and now winning Cy Young awards. This explains HOFers like Sandy Koufax, Dizzy Dean, and Jack Chesbro and why Smokey Joe Wood is still being considered.<br /><br />Obviously most HOFers combine these to some degree or another and the greatest of all have tremendous career numbers based on consistent dominance. (GC Alexander, Walter Johnson, Lefty Grove etc.)<br /><br />Big Ed clearly lacks the long term numbers so his case must be based almost entirely on the second option. Unfortunately as great as he was never really in the mix for the hypothetical Cy Young award. In fact, he was never even recognized as his teams ace, 3 Finger Brown was. When the Cubs really needed a game or had to face Mathewson, they used Brown. As far as I know there are no HOF pitchers who were never really ace's in the HOF who didn't compensate by building up much bigger career numbers than Ruelbach.<br /><br />This is not to say he shouldn't get in. Ed was a crucial member of the Cubs dynasty of 1906-10, a team with a winning percentage that has not been matched since. Four members of that team are currently enshrined but just one is a pitcher. I am also sympathetic to the argument that his career (and hence his totals) suffered because of the owners. Unfortunately the HOF voters have never been sympathetic to this as evidenced by Tony Mullane's exclusion and the absurd lenghth of time it took to admit Amos Rusie (a truly dominant pitcher with strong career numbers). Even today the voters are clearly pro-owners: they select a mediocre Commissioner like Bowie Kuhn but fail to elect Marvin Miller.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p><img src="http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j106/greatwake/Reulbachstuff-1.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>With everything else being equal it would appear that had Reulbach continued to play he could have posted a 67(W) and 99(L) record with over a 3.00 ERA from the time of his retirement and then he could be in the HOF (via matching Marquard's career numbers.