Posted By:
Kevin CummingsI think the problem with Ed Ruelbach is that he is too much like many other pitchers who also have what could be construed as "legitimate" claims to the Hall of Fame - none of whom is outstanding.
I happen to be a fan of Bill James who attempts to evaluate HOF candidates (past and present) using statistical methods.
If you look at Reulbach's "numbers" at the link below and then go down to the bottom of the page and look at the "Similar Pitchers" section, Reulbach's "measurements" put him in a grouping with only one of ten who are already in the Hall of Fame. As a point of reference, Tony Mullane's "measurements" put him in a grouping where seven of the ten are HOFers.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/reulbed01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mullato01.shtml
This doesn't mean that just because someone is already in the Hall of Fame he can be used to justify the inclusion of another similar player. That is one reason Bill James developed his statistics - to analyze and argue against emotional comparisons. One might argue, however, that being in a group where seven of your statistical peers are in the Hall of Fame would lend credence to the belief that you belong more than being in a group with just one.
If it makes you feel any better, Gus Weyhing is one of my favorite pitchers (for somewhat of an emotional reason since I know one of his descendants). He's one of the three in the Mullane grouping who isn't in the Hall and he'll never get in either!
As for position players, I think George Van Haltren and Jimmy Ryan belong, but with the new voting rules, I don't think it'll ever happen.