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

[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.