Bob Caruthers And The HOF

[Tomi]

He played a total of 9 years and his numbers rival the best pitchers of his era yet he was never inducted into the HOF because he didn't meet the 10 year minimum requirement to be inducted. I read that he will be eligible in 2025 on the Veteran's ballot and was wondering how this works. Did the rules for induction change?

[bbcard1]

Judging by several of the recent selections, the rules for both inclusion and exclusion have changed.

[mrreality68]

From my understanding it is still 10 years and from everything I am reading it still says 10 years for any player from any generation regardless of which committee they might be voted thru

But there is one site that he is next eligible in 2025
http://hallofstats.com/player/carutb...ee%20in%202025.


So I do not know

[Kidnapped18]

Simple answer...Caruthers had a 10 year career 1884-1893
1884 1st year
1885 2nd year
1886 3rd year
1887 4th year
1888 5th year
1889 6th year
1890 7th year
1891 8th year
1892 9th year
1893 10th year

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Kidnapped18

Simple answer...Caruthers had a 10 year career 1884-1893
1884 1st year
1885 2nd year
1886 3rd year
1887 4th year
1888 5th year
1889 6th year
1890 7th year
1891 8th year
1892 9th year
1893 10th year

Yes, his record is a little deceptive when viewed on baseball-reference site, as his tenth year in 1893 he did not pitch, and thus is shown having only played 9 seasons in the pitching group of statistics that leads off his entry on the site, but he played outfield in 14 games for two different NL teams in 1893, which shows up in his batting group of stats.

Brian

[Tomi]

Originally Posted by brianp-beme

Yes, his record is a little deceptive when viewed on baseball-reference site, as his tenth year in 1893 he did not pitch, and thus is shown having only played 9 seasons in the pitching group of statistics that leads off his entry on the site, but he played outfield in 14 games for two different NL teams in 1893, which shows up in his batting group of stats.

Brian

This would still be a 10th season, right? Unless his at bats was so low that it didn't qualify as a year. Kind of a head scratcher as he did play 10 years even though 1893 was not a full year due to at bats total.

[mrreality68]

Wow mystery solved and I did not know about the 10th season

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Tomi

This would still be a 10th season, right? Unless his at bats was so low that it didn't qualify as a year. Kind of a head scratcher as he did play 10 years even though 1893 was not a full year due to at bats total.

He played 13 games, why wouldn't it count? Ross Youngs played 10 seasons and only played 7 games his first season. That didn't keep him out of the HOF. Dizzy Dean played 12 seasons, but 3 of his seasons he only pitched in 1 game and he is in. Addie Joss only pitched 9 seasons but was on the Indians roster for his 10th season, but passed away on the 3rd day of the season.

[oldjudge]

Parisian Bob sure deserves to get in--I hope he does.

[GaryPassamonte]

Caruthers is one of about a dozen or so 19th century players that should be in the Hall of Fame. Some are pioneer players whose careers started before recognized major leagues started and have less than 10 seasons. Others came later and meet the 10 year rule. Unfortunately for 19th century players, it seems the space they once occupied has been filled by Negro league and pre- Negro League players today. I believe the Hall has done away with the 10 year rule for Negro League and pre-Negro League players, but not for 19th century players. This is good for the Negro League and pre-Negro League players. However, early 19th century players shouldn't be punished for being born too early and deserve the same consideration. There should be room enough for both groups in the Hall. I'm happy Negro and pre- Negro league players are getting long overdue attention. I only hope the 19th century players will not be the losers because of it.

[Fred]

Caruthers did have 10 years of service in the AA and NL. The last year (1893) he didn't pitch.

Besides Spalding (only had 8 total seasons played), he's the only pitcher to have over 200 wins and less than 100 losses. However Kershaw has a chance to do it if he retires before losing 13 more games (and assuming he wins 3 more games, which is more than likely). Pedro Martinez had a chance to be in that club, but he chose to pitch in 2009 and lost only one game (was 5-1) but it was his 100th career loss.

It's fun to look at the 19th century players that are SO close to being enshrined. Look at Bobby Mathews. 297 total wins. If he had 3 more, he'd already be in. Then there's Tony Mullane who is 16 wins shy of 300, however he was suspended for the entire 1885 season. He won 36 games in 1884 and he won 33 in 1886. More than likely, he'd have 300 wins if he played in 1885.

[scotgreb]

Every thread needs a card

Caruthers, Bob N162 PSA 2 26336249.jpg

[G1911]

I think Caruthers is hurt by a couple of things.

1) He played in the AA, which the Hall doesn’t like very much. He was a mediocre pitcher in the NL (97 ERA+ = 3% below league average).

2) His career is very short. 19th century pitchers tended to hurl more innings and play fewer years than we are used to now. Caruthers only threw 2,800 innings though, which doesn’t compare well to his HOF contemporaries.

3) His stats start to recede when you look at his team. His primary HOF statistic is his win loss record, which has more to do with him playing on the Browns and Bridegrooms that were great teams than his hurling. When he went 40-11 to lead in wins and win percentage, his ERA+ was a good but not star 110 (his other 40 win year was an actually great season).

On the other hand, he was an excellent pitcher and he was as good of a batter or better than he was a pitcher. 134 OPS+ over 2,900 plate appearances is hardly insignificant. It probably is not fair to hold the AA against him too much, it’s a recognized major league in a period where the lines were rather fluid and thus should count.

I would vote for Caruthers as a lower end but deserving HOFer. I would probably vote for 6-10 other 19th century players before him though.

I think the year rule is a good rule for players who came up in the time of the major leagues. I think it should be waived for pioneers like Ross Barnes and James Creighton. It’s absurd that they aren’t in the Hall.

[Misunderestimated]

Caruthers looked like a 19th Century Ohtanti contributing at the plate and on the mound at the highest level in late 1880's.... He was one of the best player on the American Association best team so there's that in his favor too, His problems as a candidate for the HOF are both the brevity of his career and the fact that he played most of it (including his best years) in the old American Association which has been regarded as a lower end "major league."
The first (and only) primary AA player to gain admissions to the HOF is Bid McPhee who wasn't selected until 2000.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think Caruthers is hurt by a couple of things.

1) He played in the AA, which the Hall doesn’t like very much. He was a mediocre pitcher in the NL (97 ERA+ = 3% below league average).

2) His career is very short. 19th century pitchers tended to hurl more innings and play fewer years than we are used to now. Caruthers only threw 2,800 innings though, which doesn’t compare well to his HOF contemporaries.

3) His stats start to recede when you look at his team. His primary HOF statistic is his win loss record, which has more to do with him playing on the Browns and Bridegrooms that were great teams than his hurling. When he went 40-11 to lead in wins and win percentage, his ERA+ was a good but not star 110 (his other 40 win year was an actually great season).

On the other hand, he was an excellent pitcher and he was as good of a batter or better than he was a pitcher. 134 OPS+ over 2,900 plate appearances is hardly insignificant. It probably is not fair to hold the AA against him too much, it’s a recognized major league in a period where the lines were rather fluid and thus should count.

I would vote for Caruthers as a lower end but deserving HOFer. I would probably vote for 6-10 other 19th century players before him though.

I think the year rule is a good rule for players who came up in the time of the major leagues. I think it should be waived for pioneers like Ross Barnes and James Creighton. It’s absurd that they aren’t in the Hall.

+1

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Why does nobody ever talk about Will White? Why has he been forgotten to time?

Must be the combination of AA and a few partial seasons in that ten year career. Regardless, those numbers...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Why does nobody ever talk about Will White? Why has he been forgotten to time? What on earth am I missing to not understand why he wasn't a charter member of the HOF?

I would put White smilier to Caruthers as a pitcher. White couldn't hit though so he loses significant overall value. 3,500 innings, 121 ERA+, he's a legit candidate on paper.

He missed the milestones so he got overlooked in the past, and he's overlooked now because WAR doesn't like him; he also has the AA factor. WAR is written around the modern game with an adaptation to punish 19th century pitchers so they don't score higher than people want them to score; it's a pretty bad measure of 19th century baseball.

I would pick Jim McCormick over any other 19th century MLB era pitcher not in the hall.

[Fred]

Edited to add - this is with regard to post 16.

Of the five original HOFers, only one played during the 19th century and when you consider the quality careers that the first five players had and the quality of other 19th century players, then there might be one reason he wasn't in the charter class. However, it took a LONG time (2013) for White to be inducted.

There really should be a "pioneer" section in the HOF with Ross Barnes and a few others included.

The following should probably be in the BST, but if anyone has a Caruthers OJ for sale, please let me know.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Out of 7 full seasons, he had three 40 win seasons and two with over 30. 680 IP in 1879 and 75/76 of those games were CG. Fully realizing how different the game was then, it's still just staggering to me.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by Fred

Edited to add - this is with regard to post 16.

Of the five original HOFers, only one played during the 19th century and when you consider the quality careers that the first five players had and the quality of other 19th century players, then there might be one reason he wasn't in the charter class. However, it took a LONG time (2013) for White to be inducted.

Fred,

I'm talking about Deacon's brother.

[Fred]

I was kind of wondering about that. I always think about Deacon White when I think about players with OJ cards (not that's what this thread is about).

Will's a good pick if you want to compare careers with Caruthers. Will's best years were in the AA also. That 40 loss season was in the NL.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

parisian bob sure deserves to get in--i hope he does.

+1
.

[t206fanatic]

hes got a great one in the n28 set

[Kenny Cole]

I would personally vote for Jim McCormick, Tony Mullane, and Bobby Matthews, in that order, before Caruthers. Maybe Charlie Buffington too. But here are some Caruthers cards.

[Mike Eisenbath]

I really LOVE that Goodwin card of Caruthers. I'm a sucker for anything having to do with players from those AA Browns teams, even though they're all out of my price range.

When I wrote the Cardinals Encyclopedia way back when, I made a point of including all those Browns teams in the franchise history as a direct decendant, even though the Cardinals organization officially recognizes its beginning as 1892. Caruthers was so vital to that club's success.

Anyone with other cards of him? I have no idea how many different ones exist.

Thanks for the thread, gentlemen!

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Rad_Hazard]

Here is my Caruthers, the incorrectly named "Scrapps" set. I know this has been posted before, but I always like to post this link when I post one of mine since these are likely the first ever gum cards.

https://loveofthegameauctions.com/th...rapps-tobacco/

As for Parisian Bob, I definitely think he belongs in the hall. The only pitcher ever with over 200 wins and less than 100 losses, won 40 games twice, and had a .282 batting average, even leading the league in SLG and OPS one season.

I think he is definitely a hall of famer and I hope he gets in, although I agree with some here that there are other 19th century guys that should go in before him such as:

Jack Glasscock
Jim McCormick
Tony Mullane
Bobby Mathews
Charlie Bennett
As well as pioneers such as Ross Barnes and Cal McVey.

I like this old poem about Glasscock:

The St. Louis Globe Democrat (August 29, 1898) published the following poem about Glasscock:

With a knife in his teeth and a gun in his belt,
With a dynamite bomb in his goodly right hand,
With a dagger in his shoe and a sword in his side
Tears the giant toward the spot where King Glasscock doth stand.
And the ambulance close at his heels tears along,
With bandages, plasters, splints, sponges, and such
And the doctors agree as they watch the “Great steal”
That of giant and of Glasscock, there won’t be much left.

[Mussari]

Charlie Buffington and Bob Caruthers on my E.R. Williams. It also has the double rr spelling of Carruthers. Very similar cases for 19th century Hall of Fame Candidates.