Eddie Cicotte's HOF chances - should he get in? Will he?

[jsfriedm]

Thoughts?

[darwinbulldog]

No. And no. Setting aside what he's best known for, even his stats don't quite cut it for me. I'll eat my hat if he gets more than 2 votes.

[G1911]

No, no. He’s a borderline choice, a low end HOFer if he makes it. Doubt he gets anywhere even if he makes a committee ballot. Unlike Jackson and Rose it’s not clear he would be in if he hadn’t rigged games or bet. I think we should be done with deadball pitchers at this point.

[scotgreb]

Cicotte, Ed 1909 E95 PSA 1-5 28639774.jpg

[ThomasL]

Borderline candidate

some credit him with inventing the knuckleball and based on the fact that Candy Cummings is in the HOF for just "inventing" the curve ball you could argue that is enough...but Cicotte had good peak years and solid career ERA w borderline win total.

I'd vote for Cicotte but doubt he gets 5 votes which is required to stay on the ballot.

Cicotte's role in the 1919 WS fix is much more damnable than Joe Jackson's which should hurt Cicotte's chances

Cicotte was a primary and possibly THE primary fixer as many believe it was his idea.

[parkplace33]

No and No. I also think that Shoeless Joe doesn't get in as well.

[molenick]

Cicotte I think falls in that group of pitchers where it seems almost random why someone is in and someone is not. Why are Rube Marquard and Jack Chesbro in and not Babe Adams, Wilbur Cooper, Jesse Tannehill, Wes Ferrell, etc., etc.?

That being said, if you have any faith in Baseball Reference rankings, he is nestled right there with several HOFers.

[ThomasL]

Chesbro is in bc of 1 amazing season and Marquard bc he played in a New York market (as did Chesbro) and was one of those Veterans Committee elections that Frankie Fisch pushed with his click to get a lot of former Giants and Cardinals in that probably didnt deserve it

[Jsquared123]

He's borderline with a high peak. There are worse pitchers in and better ones not.

If you give him credit for another solid 2 years or so, he's in. If you don't.. he's not.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Jsquared123

He's borderline with a high peak. There are worse pitchers in and better ones not.

If you give him credit for another solid 2 years or so, he's in. If you don't.. he's not.

His peak is 3 out of his last 4 years so not very long. Why would you give him credit for another 2 years that he didn't pitch? It's not like he was serving in the military. He was thrown out of baseball for helping throw World Series games.

[Jsquared123]

Originally Posted by jayshum

His peak is 3 out of his last 4 years so not very long. Why would you give him credit for another 2 years that he didn't pitch? It's not like he was serving in the military. He was thrown out of baseball for helping throw World Series games.

No arguments here but there are some that will feel that because he is now eligible and "forgiven", he was robbed of a few years at the end of his career that could have really put him over the top. He was acquitted criminally and maybe if Landis didn't rule with an iron first, all their punishments might be more lenient, aka miss 1 year and come back and finish up. Who knows..

I have no problem either way if he goes in or not.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Jsquared123

No arguments here but there are some that will feel that because he is now eligible and "forgiven", he was robbed of a few years at the end of his career that could have really put him over the top. He was acquitted criminally and maybe if Landis didn't rule with an iron first, all their punishments might be more lenient, aka miss 1 year and come back and finish up. Who knows..

I have no problem either way if he goes in or not.

I can see more people feeling that way about Weaver than Cicotte. Also, it's obviously impossible to know what Cicotte would have done if he had pitched longer, but with the introduction of the livelier ball, he might not have done much to improve his overall stats.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Borderline candidate

some credit him with inventing the knuckleball and based on the fact that Candy Cummings is in the HOF for just "inventing" the curve ball you could argue that is enough...but Cicotte had good peak years and solid career ERA w borderline win total.

I'd vote for Cicotte but doubt he gets 5 votes which is required to stay on the ballot.

Cicotte's role in the 1919 WS fix is much more damnable than Joe Jackson's which should hurt Cicotte's chances

Cicotte was a primary and possibly THE primary fixer as many believe it was his idea.

Well Said Thomas
and eligible does not mean deserving and eligible does not take away to me the degree of the guilt/involvment of his role in the Fix

[nat]

Sign me up for team "no and no" also. Although he's reasonably close and might have made it if not for... you know... the thing.

As a guy with a HOF collection, it doesn't matter all that much to me whether he gets in or not. But I really hope they don't put in Jackson. A Cicotte card I can afford. Jackson though

[z28jd]

He would be borderline with me if he didn't have a hand in the World Series fix. To me it's the same as my personal thoughts on Andy Pettitte and Todd Helton, though more so with Pettitte.

Helton is borderline for me, but he was a habitual drunk driver, which is a big no for me. So I would have never voted for him. He didn't learn his lesson when he was charged the first time, then he doubled down on it and did something worse (who knows how many times he wasn't caught, or caught and let go). So he doesn't belong in Cooperstown.

Pettitte is the better example though. He is a borderline player, could go either way. He admitted steroid use once, then came clean and said he did it multiple times. Steroid use should be factored into stats. I'm okay with Bonds and Clemens being in because they were HOF players without it. I'm also okay with them waiting to get in. When a fringe HOF player has a red flag, then no thanks. His steroid use made him a fringe candidate. Stay out.

Ciccotte is that fringe/red flag guy. I'm also not in the camp that since Helton is in, then I should overlook a red flag. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather 100 guys threw games than one guy drove drunk, so I'm not comparing their mistakes. Putting him in because Helton is in is not learning from mistakes.

[Epps]

Ed's enjoying the discussion

1915 Cracker Jack Cicotte.jpg

[molenick]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Chesbro is in bc of 1 amazing season and Marquard bc he played in a New York market (as did Chesbro) and was one of those Veterans Committee elections that Frankie Fisch pushed with his click to get a lot of former Giants and Cardinals in that probably didnt deserve it

Agree on Chesbro. I guess I shouldn't have said "why are" they in. I was just looking for borderline selections.

I agree that Frisch got a lot of less-than-deserving teammates in (Bancroft, Kelly, Haines, etc.). Marquard was never a teammate of his (as far as I can tell) but did go in while Frisch was on the committee. I think what helped Marquard was going from the "$11,000 lemon" to winning 20+ games for three straight pennant winners and once winning 19 decision in a row. There is also speculation that he got a "Glory of Their Times" bump. He was in the book and was elected after it was published.

There is a usually a story behind a borderline selection...a famous feat, friends(s) on the committee, renewed interest in a player, etc. Cicotte's story has certainly kept his name in the public eye longer than many pitchers with similar records.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by molenick

w. There is also speculation that he got a "Glory of Their Times" bump. He was in the book and was elected after it was published.

Beat me to it. Throw Coveleski, Goslin et al into that argument, although I'm fine with those guys being in. Marquard I could have done without, but it's not a Haines or Lindstrom situation where it almost inspires anger. Frisch really screwed with things, that's for certain.

[molenick]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Beat me to it. Throw Coveleski, Goslin et al into that argument, although I'm fine with those guys being in. Marquard I could have done without, but it's not a Haines or Lindstrom situation where it almost inspires anger. Frisch really screwed with things, that's for certain.

Yeah, I was going to mention Coveleski and Goslin (and Hooper) as well but I didn't want to expand the discussion into whether those players should be in (of the four, Goslin to me is the most obvious inclusion).

[ThomasL]

What is crazy is I think Cicotte's HOF comp is Red Faber...who some have argued as a borderline HOF pitcher was selected/pushed over the mark and elected because he was not in on the 1919 WS fix or 1920 game fixing!


Here is Cicotte's career (14 seasons) compared to Faber's first 14 seasons.

[packs]

He has an interesting case because he put up some pretty big seasons right before his ban. He won 28 and 29 games. I imagine if he had managed the wins and was a two time 30 game winner it would be hard to keep him out.

[nat]

Faber played six more seasons after that. In which he won 49 more games, put up 15 more WAR, and pitched to a 111 ERA+. That's six more years of good pitching. (Not great pitching, but plenty good.) Cicotte may have had that in him - he was still a fine pitcher in 1920 - and if he could keep pitching effectively into his early 40s like Faber did, he would be well-qualified for the fall of fame (except for that whole throwing the world series thing). As it is, he's not a bad candidate, just not an especially good one either.

[DaveW]

Throwing the WS makes him a no for me. These guys weren’t “forgiven “ or exonerated, the commissioner merely ruled that the lifetime ban ended when your lifetime ended.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by nat

Faber played six more seasons after that. In which he won 49 more games, put up 15 more WAR, and pitched to a 111 ERA+. That's six more years of good pitching. (Not great pitching, but plenty good.) Cicotte may have had that in him - he was still a fine pitcher in 1920 - and if he could keep pitching effectively into his early 40s like Faber did, he would be well-qualified for the fall of fame (except for that whole throwing the world series thing). As it is, he's not a bad candidate, just not an especially good one either.

Yes, I only compared their first 14 season since Cicotte's career ended after his 14th...and through that point they are pretty comparable with Cicotte being the better of the two. Cicotte's durability was beginning to be an issue but he was a knuckleball pitcher who was putting together solid seasons when he was banned...so possibly could have extended the career with a year or two more of 20+ wins with that crazy Sox team and rotation...50 wins in the next 3 season would not have been unreasonable for Cicotte...but would never know obviously bc of his choices

Also I dont think he will get elected and shouldnt be elected bc he did throw at least 1 WS game (game 1) and very likely threw games in the 1920 season...his guilt is not debatable unlike Jackson's

[gregndodgers]

He was one of the best pitchers at the time of the scandal and he could have played another ten years or so, so he was a shoe in for the hall until he wasn’t.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

He was one of the best pitchers at the time of the scandal and he could have played another ten years or so, so he was a shoe in for the hall until he wasn’t.

He would have pitched until he was 46? Seems unlikely.

[gregndodgers]

Many of the pitchers from that era pitched into their 40s. Grover Cleveland Alexander (43), Cy Young (44), and Chief Bender (41) to name a few. He was a knuckleball specialist, and we know that many contemporary knuckleball pitchers pitched well into their 40s including Charlie Hough (46), Phil Niekro (48), and Hoyt Wilhelm (49). Father Time gives them a break.

[packs]

Cicotte was only getting better as he aged. He had a WAR of 57.9 for his career, but put up 40 WAR after age 30. He won 209 games, but 129 of those wins came after turning 30.

From age 33 to 36 he won 90 games with an ERA+ of 134.

There was no indication his career was nearly over.

[gregndodgers]

There are 27 pitchers who are in the HOF rated below him in terms of JAWS, so yea his chances are low. LoL

[campyfan39]

My only pre-war card!

[gregndodgers]

Although I believe Cicotte has HOF worthy numbers, the bigger issue is whether his acts in helping throw the World Series constitute such reprehensible moral turpitude, that either he should not be eligible for the HOF or that it is sufficient for voters to refrain from electing him.

“This is terrible for my family,” Cicotte said. “My poor kids – oh, why did I do it? I’ve lived a terrible year in the last 12 months.”

“He admitted that the whole plan was his idea. “I refused to pitch a ball until I got the money. It [the $10,000 in cash] was placed under my pillow in the hotel the night before the first game of the Series. Every one [of the players] was paid individually, and the same scheme was used to deliver it.”

“Cicotte admitted to deliberately hitting the leadoff batter in Game 1 and that in Game 4, he purposefully intercepted a throw from Jackson in the outfield that would have caught a Reds player, and made a wild throw to first, both resulting in two runs for the Reds, who won 2-0. He said he and fellow pitcher Williams also ignored pitch signals given by catcher Ray Schalk, who was not in on the scam.”

“For the Series, the Sox’s so-called ace Cicotte yielded 19 hits and 9 runs (7 earned) in 21 2/3rd innings, with one win (game 6) and two losses (games 1 and 4).”

https://themobmuseum.org/blog/the-bl...0-years-later/

So given that many players who were later elected to the HOF with a checkered past and morally reprehensible conduct, what standard should be used for the voters? Should it be a personal one or an objective standard that we can all determine?

For me, this is the issue.

[gregndodgers]

“From September 15, 1916, to July 25, 1917, Cicotte pitched 25 straight starts in which he allowed three earned runs or less with at least six innings pitched, which retroactively became known as the quality start. Cicotte's 25 game streak was the most for a half-century until Bob Gibson passed him.”

Among all eligible pitchers, his career ERA of 2.38 is 24th lowest overall in major league history.

World Series champion (1917)
2× AL wins leader (1917, 1919)
AL ERA leader (1917)
Pitched a no-hitter on April 14, 1917

[gregndodgers]

Does revenge constitute moral turpitude? If you had a provision in your employment contract that would grant you an additional $10,000 for achieving a certain performance level, and your boss deliberately stopped you from achieving that level, would you be mad?

There is evidence that Eddie was deliberately held out of games so that he would not win 30 games and get his $10,000 bonus. Hmmm. It’s interesting that his take in the scandal was $10,000.

In 1919, Eddie pitched every fifth day of the season (and sometimes every 3rd day), so by pitching that often and pitching extremely well, he was able to amass 29 wins that season.

In fact, on September 5, 1919, he won his 28th game. At that point, the White Sox still had 19 games left to play. Those 19 games would allow Cicotte to start five more games. Inexplicably, he did not pitch again until September 19, a game in which he won his 29th game. But the long absence caused him to miss two starts.

Anyway, he still had two games after his 29th win to win one game. What happened next? After routinely pitching all nine innings of his starts (he pitched at least 9 innings in 26 of his 40 starts that season), he was pulled early and only pitched a total of 9 innings in his final two starts.

So of the final five games he was scheduled to start, he started and pitched in only three of those games. Then after wining his 29th game, he started two more games but was taken out early in both of those games.

So the theory is that since Comisky deliberately prevented Eddie from getting his bonus, Eddie decided to stick it to Comisky and prevent him from winning the World Series.

If this theory is true, was Eddie justified? Does the injustice of being prevented from receiving what is justly yours a valid reason for this type of revenge? I think many would say yes. So the nature of Eddie’s act may be wrongly placed. Instead of committing an act to gain money by throwing a game it becomes an act of revenge!

[ThomasL]

greg- I appreciate your posts and case you are making for Cicotte...however you are posting outdated notions as historians view the 1919 WS which many have considered myths and not factual now. Cicotte being deliberately held out of games to stop a bonus from kicking in is a major one for example.

Read this
https://sabr.org/eight-myths-out

Also the plot to throw the WS was put in motion well before Cicotte had a chance to win 30 games...so that could not have been his motive. Gandil and Cicotte met with Bill Burns in Boston Sept 19th to discuss details of a possible fix if the Sox won the pennant...his last two starts when he could have won his 30th game the plot was already made to throw the series.

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...scandal-brews/

[gregndodgers]

He won his 28th game on September 5 and then did not pitch another game until September 19!!!! Unless he was injured, it appears to me that the long layoff was deliberate attempt to keep his wins down. Is it a coincidence that on September 19 after being held out of two starts he started conspiring against Comisky? I think not.

Also, according to this source, Cicotte and two players including Gandil met privately on the 18th discuss a possible fix.

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...scandal-brews/

[ThomasL]

The plot to throw it was made before he had 3 chances to win his 30th game...this theory makes no sense in the timeline of events...Cicotte does not cite this at all in his confession either and believe even said he had no ill will toward Comiskey or he felt bad for doing this to him...something like that...would have to re-read it. They just wanted to make some easy money and that was it and cited that the idea came from the 1918 Cubs throwing the WS

[ThomasL]

One of those starts in Sept you mention Cicotte missed Gleason wanted to give the lesser used pitchers a chance to get work in before the series and rest his aces arm when they played the A's, a team that Mack was playing mostly rookies at that time at the end of the season. Very logical and tactical managerial decision...simple easy answer...not a conspiracy to keep him from winning games (which they would have just rested him till the end of the season if they wanted to do that)
Sep 13, 1919 Chicago Tribune

[Yoda]

If Charles Comiskey wasn't such a cheap SOB and paid his players what they were worth, perhaps the '19 WS fix would never have happened. He wouldn't even pay for the players' uniforms to be cleaned. Pre-war cards in many cases reflect that grubby fact.
And, of course, Buck Weaver protested his innocence until the day he died, while Cicotte was totally open about it.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Yoda

If Charles Comiskey wasn't such a cheap SOB and paid his players what they were worth, perhaps the '19 WS fix would never have happened. He wouldn't even pay for the players' uniforms to be cleaned. Pre-war cards in many cases reflect that grubby fact.
And, of course, Buck Weaver protested his innocence until the day he died, while Cicotte was totally open about it.

Compared to the league they were paid fairly by in large, if you want to argue the league and their contract structures held players pay down save for a few high profile players (Cobb) than that is a fair argument. It is one of the "8 Myths Out"

I will however push back on this take the "8 Myths" makes a little...

Now there is little doubt several Sox players thought they were underpaid. The only real league contracts they saw were the high profile ones that newspapers reported on, Cobb and Alexander and more importantly Eddie Collins...they all knew what Collins was paid and Collins was not well liked by most of the team. Weaver and Gandil I have no doubt thought they were under paid...Weaver also probably felt slighted by the choosing of Collins as team captain when he arrived...Risberg was still young and not established but he was buddies with Gandil and Weaver (and McMullin) who were all PCL stars and had known each other for a long time.

It is also worth noting that before the 1919 WS the team was not really divided into clicks...that happened really for the 1920 season bc the Clean Sox knew what happened and didnt associate with those players after. Before that there was only one player that most of the team did not associate with and that was Eddie Collins bc he was highly paid, received a lot of press, had not been on the team long, was made captain, was highly educated and had a personality that was hard to get along with.

Later in life several Clean Sox even said Comiskey was stingy with money...Eddie Murphy and Win Noyes I know said this and I believe Byrd Lynn...and Comiskey/Grabiner were shrewd negotiators...all this plus they had no clue what the rest of the league was making makes for the appearance to the player(s) that they were getting screwed. It is also the nature of contracts that each party fights for their own interests.

[Yoda]

Tom, great post. You filled in several gaps in my knowledge of the whole sad saga. For example, I didn't realize that Eddie Collins was generally disliked by his teammates. For all the reasons you outlined, I do now.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

There are 27 pitchers who are in the HOF rated below him in terms of JAWS, so yea his chances are low. LoL

Alright, fine, you can vote for him. But first you have to vote for Roger Clemens, Jim McCormick, Curt Schilling, Tommy Bond, Charlie Buffinton, Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers, Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Jim Whitney, Luis Tiant, Bobby Mathews, David Cone, and Urban Shocker.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Compared to the league they were paid fairly by in large, if you want to argue the league and their contract structures held players pay down save for a few high profile players (Cobb) than that is a fair argument. It is one of the "8 Myths Out"

I will however push back on this take the "8 Myths" makes a little...

Now there is little doubt several Sox players thought they were underpaid. The only real league contracts they saw were the high profile ones that newspapers reported on, Cobb and Alexander and more importantly Eddie Collins...they all knew what Collins was paid and Collins was not well liked by most of the team. Weaver and Gandil I have no doubt thought they were under paid...Weaver also probably felt slighted by the choosing of Collins as team captain when he arrived...Risberg was still young and not established but he was buddies with Gandil and Weaver (and McMullin) who were all PCL stars and had known each other for a long time.

It is also worth noting that before the 1919 WS the team was not really divided into clicks...that happened really for the 1920 season bc the Clean Sox knew what happened and didnt associate with those players after. Before that there was only one player that most of the team did not associate with and that was Eddie Collins bc he was highly paid, received a lot of press, had not been on the team long, was made captain, was highly educated and had a personality that was hard to get along with.

Later in life several Clean Sox even said Comiskey was stingy with money...Eddie Murphy and Win Noyes I know said this and I believe Byrd Lynn...and Comiskey/Grabiner were shrewd negotiators...all this plus they had no clue what the rest of the league was making makes for the appearance to the player(s) that they were getting screwed. It is also the nature of contracts that each party fights for their own interests.

These historical posts are astounding; incredibly interesting to read.

[gregndodgers]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Alright, fine, you can vote for him. But first you have to vote for Roger Clemens, Jim McCormick, Curt Schilling, Tommy Bond, Charlie Buffinton, Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers, Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Jim Whitney, Luis Tiant, Bobby Mathews, David Cone, and Urban Shocker.

I would vote yes for all the pitchers on this list that I actually saw pitch including Clemens, Schilling, Kevin Brown, Tiant, and Cone. They were all top pitchers during their era, and unless they killed a person with no justification, I would let a person in. For the ones like the black Sox who threw games, a lifetime ban is sufficient punishment. For steroid users, take their stats pre steroid use, and use only those stats to vote yes or no.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I would vote yes for all the pitchers on this list that I actually saw pitch including Clemens, Schilling, Kevin Brown, Tiant, and Cone. They were all top pitchers during their era, and unless they killed a person with no justification, I would let a person in. For the ones like the black Sox who threw games, a lifetime ban is sufficient punishment. For steroid users, take their stats pre steroid use, and use only those stats to vote yes or no.

That's fine. Almost all of them should be in. But the votes are quite limited, so if we're going by JAWS it'll take many more years before Cicotte is the most deserving pitcher not in the Hall. In the meantime you also have to vote for Greinke, Kershaw, Sherzer, and Verlander.

And that's if you decide to use all your votes for pitchers. Otherwise I'm not sure he could get it in within the next 40 years. But they keep changing the committee rules so who knows.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That's fine. Almost all of them should be in. But the votes are quite limited, so if we're going by JAWS it'll take many more years before Cicotte is the most deserving pitcher not in the Hall. In the meantime you also have to vote for Greinke, Kershaw, Sherzer, and Verlander.

And that's if you decide to use all your votes for pitchers. Otherwise I'm not sure he could get it in within the next 40 years. But they keep changing the committee rules so who knows.

Greinke, Kershaw, Sherzer, and Verlander will be on the BBWAA ballot not the Era Committee ballot so they won't impact potential votes for Cicotte. However, you're right that there are many other pitchers (and position players) likely to receive votes before someone decides to vote for him.

[ThomasL]

In 1956 columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on the Black Sox scandal and interviewed several 1919 Sox players including Eddie Cicotte. Cicotte said he was paid well ($10,000) but others werent (citing Lefty Williams and Ed Walsh) Here it is, sorry for the large upload image hope that is ok (leon)

In his first article of this series Pegler has a great line

"Jackson, Fred McMullin, a substitute infielder, and Weaver, are gone. American public opinion buried them in a quick-lime of moralistic scorn..."

[DaveW]

Interesting article! Thanks for posting it.

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

In 1956 columnist Westbrook Pegler wrote a series of articles on the Black Sox scandal and interviewed several 1919 Sox players including Eddie Cicotte. Cicotte said he was paid well ($10,000) but others werent (citing Lefty Williams and Ed Walsh) Here it is, sorry for the large upload image hope that is ok (leon)

In his first article of this series Pegler has a great line

"Jackson, Fred McMullin, a substitute infielder, and Weaver, are gone. American public opinion buried them in a quick-lime of moralistic scorn..."

That is awesome. Pegler writes in a way that makes you feel like you're right there, listening to Eddie Cicotte talk.

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by DaveW

Interesting article! Thanks for posting it.

Originally Posted by jingram058

That is awesome.

Very interesting and enjoyable article. Do you have the other four pieces? If so, I hope you post them. Learned a thing or two, particularly that he brought up Cobb to the Bigs with him. Cicotte's description of his control was amazing. Talking in quarter-inches. Imagine that. Still don't know how to pronounce Cicotte. Am sticking with See-cott.

[paul]

If Cicotte makes it into the HOF, I will be very surprised. People forget that Cicotte was eligible from 1936 until about 1991 when the HOF passed the rule barring all players on MLB's permanent ineligible list. In all that time, as far as I can tell, he never received a single vote from the writers, and he was never elected by any of the veterans' committees. I suspect he never got any votes from the veterans' committees, but they had secret ballots at the time, so I can't know for sure.

It seems to me that the writers and committees repeatedly made the judgment that Cicotte is not worthy of the HOF because he deliberately threw the World Series. Unless today's veterans' committee has a wildly different opinion about the morality of throwing a World Series, the vote today will be the same.

Pete Rose is a different case because the writers and veterans' committees have never decided whether Rose's sins should keep him out of the HOF.