Bob Caruthers And The HOF

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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