Tony Mullane

[Cowtipper]

A part of me would really like to see Tony Mullane in the Hall of Fame. Over 13 years in the majors, Mullane went 284-220 with a 3.05 ERA. He won 30 games five seasons in a row, and he won 20 or more games eight times. He was often in the top ten in his league in IP, ERA, wins and complete games.

Mullane is third all-time in wins amongst pitchers not in the Hall of Fame.

According to TheBaseballPage, he was "arguably the most popular player in baseball in the 1880s."

A versatile player, he also played a fair amount of games in the outfield even some in the infield.

His black ink is respectable at 28, and his grey ink is terrific, at 198. Seven of the ten pitchers most related to him are in the Hall of Fame, while the other three - Gus Weyhing, Tommy John and Jim McCormick - all have something of an argument for the HOF as well.

So, should Tony Mullane be in the Hall of Fame?

[jjpm74]

Mullane is right at the cutoff for me, but should be in the HOF, IMO.

[leecemark]

--Say "Yes" to the Appollo of the Box.

[Chadwick]

--Say "Yes" to the Appollo of the Box.

All the ladies do.

[KCGHOST]

Well, maybe. Most of Mullane productivity is because he played half of his career in the American Association. That is not the most stellar of competition. Much like Pete Browning, the great hitting OFer, Mullane's performance is usually heavily discounted because of that.

Mullane does have seven HoF comps which is usually a clear sign of a Hofer, but his top two comps are a suspect (Grimes) and a mistake (Welch).

[leecemark]

--There is only one reason Mullane is not already in Cooperstown. He was blacklisted over a contract dispute and missed a season, leaving him short of 300 wins.

[Chadwick]

In the [Has it really been that long?] years I've been here, one of the best examples I can give of the good folks here offering persuasive arguments is that I've gone from believing Bob Caruthers is the most deserving pre-1920 pitcher outside the Hall to believing that man to be Tony Mullane. Once again, there's no better place for a baseball fan to get your mind sharpened, your funnybone tickled, or your ideas challenged than right here at Baseball Fever.

Thanks guys.

[MadHatter]

Should Tony Mullane be in the Hall of Fame?

Would love to hear thoughts on Tony Mullane.

284-220 record over 13 seasons
Won over 30 games in a season 5 times
3.05 Career ERA
Decent hitting pitcher as well

Thoughts on his career?

[Cowtipper]

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...hlight=mullane

[Cougar]

In the [Has it really been that long?] years I've been here, one of the best examples I can give of the good folks here offering persuasive arguments is that I've gone from believing Bob Caruthers is the most deserving pre-1920 pitcher outside the Hall to believing that man to be Tony Mullane. Once again, there's no better place for a baseball fan to get your mind sharpened, your funnybone tickled, or your ideas challenged than right here at Baseball Fever.

Thanks guys.

God bless you Brad...I feel the same way about the community, but I've gone from thinking Mullane was the most deserving 19th century pitcher to thinking Caruthers was.

Oh well. I think they both ought to be in, so it's rather a semantic point.

[Chadwick]

Caruthers could hit. Mullane is responsible for Ladies Day. My girlfriend informs me Mullane is first in line. >_<

[westsidegrounds]

Some things to consider:

For all those 30 win seasons, he never lead his league in wins. His high total of 36 wins in 1884 was good enough for 4th place that season. He also lost 26 games that season, for a W/L% of .581. (That was one of 5 20+ loss seasons for Mullane.)

He did lead his league twice in shutouts, but his total of 30 shutouts (over a fairly long career) puts him in 110th place all time.

His black ink score is swollen by the five times he lead his league in saves - that accounts for 15 points out of a BI total of 28. Check out those league-leading save numbers:

1883: 1 save
1888: 1 save
1889: 5 saves
1893: 2 saves
1894: 4 saves

Not really seeing anything much in his numbers, especially if you take those big counting stats in the context of his time, that makes him HOF-worthy.

[jjpm74]

Mullane is right at the cutoff for me, but should be in the HOF, IMO.

It's interesting what 2 years will do. Mullane is below my cutoff and someone I view as a mistake election in the progressive HOF project. He was in the top 3rd of his generation of pitchers, but how many 19th century pitchers really deserve to be in the HOF? Most from that generation who accumulated the better counting stats played for good teas and managed to not throw out their arms.