T206 Who should be a HOFer that isn't ???

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by RaidonCollects

I agree that Ed Reulbach was a great player, but I don't think he's HOF worthy. He only posted one 20 win season plus here is his HOF stats:

Black Ink Pitching - 13 (175), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 123 (152), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 101 (97), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 44 (54), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Starting Pitcher (202nd), 36.6 career WAR/32.3 7yr-peak WAR/34.5 JAWS
Average HOF P (out of 62) = 73.9 career WAR/50.3 7yr-peak WAR/62.1 JAWS

-Owen

I agree,career 27.1 fWAR, walked nearly as many as he struck out. Not a HOF'er

Sherry Magee falls a little short too IMO, 63.7 WAR is good, but among OF'ers it's only 40th all time, his wRC+ is also only tied for 64th among OF'ers all time.

During his career (1904-1919) he was only the 13th best OF hitter, and was 3rd in fWAR.

[CMIZ5290]

Ed Reulbach was 182-106 with a lifetime E.R.A. of 2.24, and these are not HOF numbers? Wow, tough crowd.... He won almost twice as many games as he lost...

[DerekMichael]

I like George Mullin

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by DerekMichael

I like George Mullin

Great pitcher Derek, but look at this comparison...

Mullin 228-196, ERA 2.83
Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Ed Reulbach was 182-106 with a lifetime E.R.A. of 2.24, and these are not HOF numbers? Wow, tough crowd.... He won almost twice as many games as he lost...

wins are a pretty worthless stat for judging individual production and yes his ERA is low, but his FIP is near 3 and for his era, it's good but not HOF worthy.

This is one of the examples of how old time "baseball card" stats really don't tell us how good a player is . His number look average once you get below the surface. 27.3 WAR over 15 years isn't much more than that, even if you say it was 50% low against him that would only make him a 40 WAR player, and over that career, once again, pretty avg.


ETA: during his career (1905-1917) Reulbach was 16th among starters in WAR, 27th in ERA and way down in the 150's in FIP. (we are talking an era, where the highest ERA among qualified starters (from 05-17) was 4.02!!!)

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wins are a pretty worthless stat for judging individual production and yes his ERA is low, but his FIP is near 3 and for his era, it's good but not HOF worthy.

This is one of the examples of how old time "baseball card" stats really don't tell us how good a player is . His number look average once you get below the surface. 27.3 WAR over 15 years isn't much more than that, even if you say it was 50% low against him that would only make him a 40 WAR player, and over that career, once again, pretty avg.


ETA: during his career (1905-1917) Reulbach was 16th among starters in WAR, 27th in ERA and way down in the 150's in FIP. (we are talking an era, where the highest ERA among qualified starters (from 05-17) was 4.02!!!)

FIP is pretty worthless for deadball pitchers. You might as well say he didn't strike out a lot of batters and there are better stats for that. The pitcher that wins the game is the one who allows the fewest runs. Reulbach had an ERA+ of 123. That is better than many pitchers in the HOF including 300 game winner Eddie Plank. That is 9th among deadball pitchers post 1901. Wins and winning percentage mean a lot for this time period when pichers often pitched the whole game. There are certainly worse pitchers in the HOF. That doesn't mean he deserves it, but for this topic, he is one of the best not in.

[bbcard1]

There are a lot of colorful players in the t206 set that are good to remember, but in no way hall of fame candidates. That era has have many players honored by HOF inclusion...probably way too many. I could live with Doyle or Dahen fine, but I think guys like Oliva, Murphy and Maris would be more credible fits and I doubt any of the three of them are going to make it. Some of the guys mentioned are real stretches. Their statistics just aren't there. Some of them have the most ______ of any player not in the hall of fame. There will always be a player with the most ________ not in the hall of fame. That is not a criteria for inclusion.

[packs]

The home run has always been king but Gavvy Cravath doesn't get any love. Six time home run champ. Three years in a row twice. The Babe Ruth prototype.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

The home run has always been king but Gavvy Cravath doesn't get any love. Six time home run champ. Three years in a row twice. The Babe Ruth prototype.

at the Baker Bowl? 260 feet?

on my best day, even I might have done that.

Oh, and the home run wasn't king until the Babe made it so.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

FIP is pretty worthless for deadball pitchers. You might as well say he didn't strike out a lot of batters and there are better stats for that. The pitcher that wins the game is the one who allows the fewest runs. Reulbach had an ERA+ of 123. That is better than many pitchers in the HOF including 300 game winner Eddie Plank. That is 9th among deadball pitchers post 1901. Wins and winning percentage mean a lot for this time period when pichers often pitched the whole game. There are certainly worse pitchers in the HOF. That doesn't mean he deserves it, but for this topic, he is one of the best not in.

not really, if FIP were truly worthless those at the top wouldn't be the best of the era (Walter Johnson, Waddell, Ed Walsh, Joe Wood, Addie Joss, Bender, Mathewson...etc)

Wins still don't mean much even back then because a win is so contingent on offense. Which is not in the pitcher's control.

Plank may have a lower ERA+ (a stat I find seriously lacking) but he's 13th in FIP during the dead ball era.

Reulbach would have one of the worst K/BB ratios of anyone from that era in the hall. Sure there are probably worse pitchers in, but if the only standard we use is the worst guy in we can rationalize nearly anyone.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wins are a pretty worthless stat for judging individual production and yes his ERA is low, but his FIP is near 3 and for his era, it's good but not HOF worthy.

This is one of the examples of how old time "baseball card" stats really don't tell us how good a player is . His number look average once you get below the surface. 27.3 WAR over 15 years isn't much more than that, even if you say it was 50% low against him that would only make him a 40 WAR player, and over that career, once again, pretty avg.


ETA: during his career (1905-1917) Reulbach was 16th among starters in WAR, 27th in ERA and way down in the 150's in FIP. (we are talking an era, where the highest ERA among qualified starters (from 05-17) was 4.02!!!)

??? If you say so....

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wins are a pretty worthless stat for judging individual production and yes his ERA is low, but his FIP is near 3 and for his era, it's good but not HOF worthy.

This is one of the examples of how old time "baseball card" stats really don't tell us how good a player is . His number look average once you get below the surface. 27.3 WAR over 15 years isn't much more than that, even if you say it was 50% low against him that would only make him a 40 WAR player, and over that career, once again, pretty avg.


ETA: during his career (1905-1917) Reulbach was 16th among starters in WAR, 27th in ERA and way down in the 150's in FIP. (we are talking an era, where the highest ERA among qualified starters (from 05-17) was 4.02!!!)

Addie Joss 160-97, ERA 1.90....HOF
Jack Chesbro 198-132, ERA 2.69...HOF
Rube Waddell 193-143, ERA 2.16....HOF
Ed Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24...??

What am I missing?? Oh, I forgot, WAR....

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Addie Joss 160-97, ERA 1.90....HOF
Jack Chesbro 198-132, ERA 2.69...HOF
Rube Waddell 193-143, ERA 2.16....HOF
Ed Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24...??

What am I missing?? Oh, I forgot, WAR....

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

[Herpolsheimer]

Hal Chase... It would make T206 collectors the happiest and for his era he was considered to be among the best....

[bravos4evr]

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

Since you have got all the WAR nonsense. Please find me one pitcher that had a higher won-lost percentage than Reulbach (min. 175 wins) that is not in the Hall....Good luck....You need to get off this WAR garbage....Look at the player

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Since you have got all the WAR nonsense. Please find me one pitcher that had a higher won-lost percentage than Reulbach (min. 175 wins) that is not in the Hall....Good luck....You need to get off this WAR garbage....Look at the player

I am looking at the player, and regardless of WAR he would be a borderline player who would make the hall worse not better.

pitcher wins are pretty worthless as a gauge of individual performance

yelling about modern statistics doesn't make them less valid

K/Bb ratio of nearly 1/1 is not good, having an FIP of near avg for his career doesn't help either.

If you want to put Reulbach in, you are going to have to put in about 50 other pitchers who are equally is deserving

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

Those are not facts, those are your opinions. I strongly disagree with them. YOU brought up ERA. I brought up ERA+ which is a much better stat as it adjusts for the park the pitcher was pitching in. Even your crappy WAR uses ERA +.

K/BB ratio is not a good way to judge a pitcher. Weakly hit balls, pop outs, easy flies, double plays are also good ways to judge a pitcher, but are ignored by FIP. FIP treats every hit ball as equal. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows that is not true. Baseball is a game of skill, not luck. Luck factors will average out over a career. Also, one of the main components of FIP are HRs, which aren't even a major issue in the period Reulbach pitched.

The bottom line is the team that allows the fewest runs wins the game. ERA+ is the best measure of that. All of your stats are fine in theory, but in the real world, Reulbach produced a great win loss record by preventing runs. He was a top 10 pitcher in his era and I will take him over all those guys with better FIP, but poor ERA+.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Those are not facts, those are your opinions. I strongly disagree with them. YOU brought up ERA. I brought up ERA+ which is a much better stat as it adjusts for the park the pitcher was pitching in. Even your crappy WAR uses ERA +.

K/BB ratio is not a good way to judge a pitcher. Weakly hit balls, pop outs, easy flies, double plays are also good ways to judge a pitcher, but are ignored by FIP. FIP treats every hit ball as equal. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows that is not true. Baseball is a game of skill, not luck. Luck factors will average out over a career. Also, one of the main components of FIP are HRs, which aren't even a major issue in the period Reulbach pitched.

The bottom line is the team that allows the fewest runs wins the game. ERA+ is the best measure of that. All of your stats are fine in theory, but in the real world, Reulbach produced a great win loss record by preventing runs. He was a top 10 pitcher in his era and I will take him over all those guys with better FIP, but poor ERA+.

Great points, thanks..Also, Kling was a fantastic catcher, closely worth to HOF status IMO...

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Ed Reulbach was 182-106 with a lifetime E.R.A. of 2.24, and these are not HOF numbers? Wow, tough crowd.... He won almost twice as many games as he lost...

Not a big Cubs supporter as I'm a Sox fan but Reulbach would get my vote.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I agree,career 27.1 fWAR, walked nearly as many as he struck out. Not a HOF'er

Sherry Magee falls a little short too IMO, 63.7 WAR is good, but among OF'ers it's only 40th all time, his wRC+ is also only tied for 64th among OF'ers all time.

During his career (1904-1919) he was only the 13th best OF hitter, and was 3rd in fWAR.

Not the best argument against Magee in my opinion. He's 40th all time in WAR four outfielders, yet there are more than 40 enshrined in the Hall.

Black ink - 35
Average Hall of Famer - 27

Gray ink - 210
Average Hall of Famer - 144

Only player to lead his league in RBIs four times and isn't in the Hall. This was in the Deadball Era.

He often gets compared to Wheat. While I think Wheat was the better player, that's no excuse to snub Magee.

[milkit1]

Johnny Kling, His contribution to the first post world series dynasty cant be overstated. He was considered the best catcher of his era and when he skipped 1909 to play billiards that was the only year between 1906-1910 that the Cubs didnt go to the world series

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Johnny Kling, His contribution to the first post world series dynasty cant be overstated. He was considered the best catcher of his era and when he skipped 1909 to play billiards that was the only year between 1906-1910 that the Cubs didnt go to the world series

I'd pass on Kling. In my opinion Bresnahan was better and really Kling is Ray Schalk with a slightly better bat but still unremarkable.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Not the best argument against Magee in my opinion. He's 40th all time in WAR four outfielders, yet there are more than 40 enshrined in the Hall.

Black ink - 35
Average Hall of Famer - 27

Gray ink - 210
Average Hall of Famer - 144

Only player to lead his league in RBIs four times and isn't in the Hall. This was in the Deadball Era.

He often gets compared to Wheat. While I think Wheat was the better player, that's no excuse to snub Magee.

RBI's is a terrible way to judge individual production as it is contingent on the actions of his teammates to get on base.

IMO, there are people with less production in, but they shouldn't have been inducted either (Jim Rice, Goose Goslin, Monte irvin)

But, I am a small hall person, others want more in, I can see the argument (and Magee is as worthy as Jim Rice IMO)

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

RBI's is a terrible way to judge individual production as it is contingent on the actions of his teammates to get on base.

IMO, there are people with less production in, but they shouldn't have been inducted either (Jim Rice, Goose Goslin, Monte irvin)

But, I am a small hall person, others want more in, I can see the argument (and Magee is as worthy as Jim Rice IMO)

Magee did it four times though and I'll take him over Rice. Irvin is also in because of the Negro Leagues and I find Goslin a solid choice.

Going back to those RBI seasons, he batted .328 in 1907, .331 in 1910 (If the Chalmers Award existed, he probably would've won this year), hit .314 in 1914 and .298 in 1918. He's in the Hall of Stats and was consistently excellent in his time.

Also, in those seasons

1907 - OPS+ 169
1910 - 174
1914 - 158
1918 - 140

His career OPS+ is 137. This is no accident or mistake. The man belongs.