[Archive]

Posted By: howard

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).

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Cheers,

Howard