Jim McCormick HOF

[RedSoxVT92]

Why is Jim McCormick not in the hall. He had a career era of 2.43 and a record of 265-214. Although his record may not be impressive his team was shut out in 43 of his 214 losses. He had 2, 40 win seasons and was forced to retire at 30 because of illness. Also look at the Black ink, Grey Ink, HOF standards, and HOF monitor on baseball refrance.

Black Ink: Pitching - 40 (35) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 220 (28) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 51.0 (32) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 194.5 (22) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Probably one of the most underrated pitchers of all time and should be in the HOF. So why has he been kept out of cooperstown

[KCGHOST]

The simple answer is that he didn't get enough votes to get. A little more complicated is that the HoF didn't start until 50 years after he last played and he had been dead for almost 20 years. He also suffers from a number of other pitchers in the 19th centruy who might be better and they aren't in either such as Tony Mullane, Jack Stivetts, Sadie McMahon, Silver King, and Nig Cuppy.

What he really needed was someone on the Veteran's Committee to champion him. No such luck.

[abacab]

The HOF Standards test and HOF Monitor are based on standards for modern Hall of Fame pitchers. They are meaningless for 19th century pitchers because their numbers are so different.

McCormick would be in the Hall if he had pitched long enough to reach 300 wins (though he might not have deserved it). His stats look a lot like those of Mickey Welch, who won 300 games because he played longer and for better teams.

[RuthMayBond]

Why is Jim McCormick not in the hall. He had a career era of 2.43 and a record of 265-214. Although his record may not be impressive his team was shut out in 43 of his 214 losses. He had 2, 40 win seasons and was forced to retire at 30 because of illness. Also look at the Black ink, Grey Ink, HOF standards, and HOF monitor on baseball refrance.

Black Ink: Pitching - 40 (35) (Average HOFer ~ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 220 (28) (Average HOFer ~ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 51.0 (32) (Average HOFer ~ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 194.5 (22) (Likely HOFer > 100)
Overall Rank in parentheses.

Probably one of the most underrated pitchers of all time and should be in the HOF. So why has he been kept out of cooperstown

Amongst pitchers who are eligible for the Hall and aren't in, I've got his career about 2nd best

[538280]

Jim McCormick was a good pitcher, nowhere near HOF quality. You need to realize the difference between 19th century and modern pitching stats. Those HOF tests you quote really aren't meant to measure 19th century performances.

By standards of the time, his career really wasn't very long and he was probably not even a top 10 pitcher in his own time. Look up the stats of guys like Jack Stivetts, Tony Mullane, Tommy Bond, Will White, Bobby Mathews, Sadie McMahon, and Bob Caruthers, all of whom have had little HOF support (with the possible exception of Caruthers), and don't really deserve any either.

You probably could make a pretty good "if Mickey Welch then McCormick deserves it" type case, but Welch really wouldn't have gotten any support if it wasn't for the magic 300, and he probably doesn't deserve it anyway.

[RuthMayBond]

By standards of the time, his career really wasn't very long

There are exactly 32 pitchers with more IP . . . EVER

<Look up the stats of guys like Will White, Bob Caruthers>

basically 7 seasons

[Baseball Guru]

Jim McCormick??

Scores pretty well on the HOF monitors over at the reference site..

Black Ink: Pitching - 40 (37) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 220 (29) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 51.0 (33) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)
HOF Monitor: Pitching - 194.5 (23) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Was wondering what everyone's thought's on him were?

He has good raw career #'s:
All time rank:
era-31st
wins-37th
whip-40th
IP-34th
shutouts-87th
complete games-11th

So what's the skinny on him? Why should he be in the HOF or why is he not.. I'd like to hear the opinions...

[RuthMayBond]

Scores pretty well on the HOF monitors over at the reference site..

Gray Ink: Pitching - 220 (29) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
HOF Standards: Pitching - 51.0 (33) (Average HOFer ≈ 50)

The best marks of any pitcher who isn't in the Hall

<Was wondering what everyone's thought's on him were?

He has good raw career #'s:
All time rank:
era-31st
wins-37th
whip-40th
IP-34th
shutouts-87th
complete games-11th

So what's the skinny on him? Why should he be in the HOF or why is he not.. I'd like to hear the opinions...>

Thanks for stumping, man. The best pitcher after Blyleven who isn't in the Hall. Stats similar to Faber, career ERA+ AND innings BOTH equal to or better than Willis, Eckersley, Bunning, and Ruffing. Once a guy's eyewitness supporters die off it's a tough row to hoe.

[Baseball Guru]

So in your opinion he "should" be in?

Personally I am leaning towards having him in but wasn't sure if I was missing something

[RuthMayBond]

So in your opinion he "should" be in?

Personally I am leaning towards having him in but wasn't sure if I was missing something

I say he should :crossfingers:

[KCGHOST]

McCormick was a fine pitcher in the earliest days of the game. Not uncommonly he had a short career of just 10 seasons. Due to the incredible number of innings these guys coud rack up they are very difficult to compare to modern era hurlers. When he pitched it was from 50 feet and the ball was thrown underhand.

His RSAA of 190 is indicative of a pitcher who was quite good but not great. His ERA+ of 118 over 4000+ innings is an indicator that he has to be given serious HoF consideration. That is almost identical to Tony Mullane who is another guy who usually comes up short in HoF discussion. And to me that is about right. Probably better than Galvin and Welch who are in the HoF due to their 300 victories.

An interesting tidbit is that he was the losing pitcher in the first perfect game ever hurled in the major leagues.

[Cowtipper]

McCormick was a fine pitcher in the earliest days of the game. Not uncommonly he had a short career of just 10 seasons. Due to the incredible number of innings these guys coud rack up they are very difficult to compare to modern era hurlers. When he pitched it was from 50 feet and the ball was thrown underhand.

His RSAA of 190 is indicative of a pitcher who was quite good but not great. His ERA+ of 118 over 4000+ innings is an indicator that he has to be given serious HoF consideration. That is almost identical to Tony Mullane who is another guy who usually comes up short in HoF discussion. And to me that is about right. Probably better than Galvin and Welch who are in the HoF due to their 300 victories.

An interesting tidbit is that he was the losing pitcher in the first perfect game ever hurled in the major leagues.

That brings up the age old question...

Should we judge players by the conditions of their day or by our current conditions?

[AG2004]

So in your opinion he "should" be in?

Personally I am leaning towards having him in but wasn't sure if I was missing something

You're missing the effect that jumping from the NL to UA in mid-1884 has on his ink scores.

The Union Association wasn't that good; with the exception of St. Louis, the level of competition in the UA was about equal to that of the Northwest League (NWL), the best minor league in 1884. McCormick went 19-22 with a 2.86 ERA in the NL that year; in the UA, he went 21-3 with a 1.54 ERA. McCormick led the UA in ERA, ERA+, and hits per nine innings; however, he wasn't in the top ten in any of those categories in the NL that year. In several categories, McCormick gets gray ink for his play in both the UA and NL that year.

If you were to remove the UA performance, McCormick would lose seven black ink points, dropping him to 46th in that category. He would also lose 20 gray ink points, going down to a tie for 38th there. His ERA+ in non-UA competition was 116.

Also, when we consider ink scores, he need to remember that teams of the 1880s used 2 or 3 main starting pitchers; for most of the 20th century, teams used 4-man rotations. This makes it easier for earlier pitchers to gain gray ink. I created a "1880s gray ink" total, where one had to finish in the top 7 to gain ink points, and where saves weren't counted. McCormick finished seventh among his era's pitchers in 1880s gray ink. I see McCormick and Welch as competing for seventh best pitcher of the era, with Mullane sixth.

------
Considering career value only (and ignoring peak), Galvin comes out higher than any of his contemporaries. The International Association (IA), which lasted from 1877 to 1880, attempted to become the best league in baseball; Galvin was the primary pitcher with second-place Pittsburgh in 1877 and first-place Buffalo in 1878. Buffalo went 10-7 against NL teams in 1878, and finished third in the NL after joining the league in 1879. Galvin deserves some credit for 1877 and 1878.

However, Galvin performed poorly in the "five best consecutive seasons" category. Counting both league play and exhibition games against non-league opponents, Galving allegedly pitched over 800 innings in both 1878 and 1879. He then crashed in 1880. Galvin recovered to pitch over 600 innings in league play in both 1883 and 1884; not surprisingly, he did very poorly in 1885.

[Paul Wendt]

AG's first point (Union Association), which is less important:

You're missing the effect that jumping from the NL to UA in mid-1884 has on his ink scores.

The Union Association wasn't that good; with the exception of St. Louis, the level of competition in the UA was about equal to that of the Northwest League (NWL), the best minor league in 1884. McCormick went 19-22 with a 2.86 ERA in the NL that year; in the UA, he went 21-3 with a 1.54 ERA. McCormick led the UA in ERA, ERA+, and hits per nine innings; however, he wasn't in the top ten in any of those categories in the NL that year. In several categories, McCormick gets gray ink for his play in both the UA and NL that year.

If you were to remove the UA performance, McCormick would lose seven black ink points, dropping him to 46th in that category. He would also lose 20 gray ink points, going down to a tie for 38th there. His ERA+ in non-UA competition was 116.

If I understand correctly, AG2004 makes these revisions:
>>
Scores pretty well on the HOF monitors over at the reference site..
Black Ink: Pitching - 40 (37) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 220 (29) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)
<<

Black Ink: Pitching - 33 (46) (Average HOFer ≈ 40)
Gray Ink: Pitching - 200 (38) (Average HOFer ≈ 185)

--
Related to AG's more important point, the meaning of gray ink and ranks such as "seventh best" in that time:

. . . I see McCormick and Welch as competing for seventh best pitcher of the era, with Mullane sixth.

Considering career value only (and ignoring peak), Galvin comes out higher than any of his contemporaries. . . . However, Galvin performed poorly in the "five best consecutive seasons" category. . . .

so Galvin is . . . fifth in your opinion?

A good definition of the group may be pitchers who started work before 1884. Before 1884 means (a) overhand pitching was prohibited, (b) major league seasons were shorter than 100 games, (c) major teams used only one or two starting pitchers.
(One may add that these pitchers could throw more than four "balls" including some that hit the batter, without cost. Or that they could play in the Union Association, a one-year opportunity.)

Jim McCormick's career ranged approximately from the time of one starting pitcher to the time of three. It's a stretch at both ends. To the point, however, gray ink is defined by league-season top tens and there were not twenty regular starting pitchers in a league until the end of his career.

[AG2004]

so Galvin is . . . fifth in your opinion?

Galvin and Caruthers are 4/5 in some order; they're behind (in alphabetical order) Clarkson, Keefe, and Radbourn. Galvin matches up well in "best three seasons" by win shares; it's his trouble in maintaining his level of play over any consecutive five-year season that puts him behind the other three. Caruthers has the high peak, but he trails in career value.

Jim McCormick's career ranged approximately from the time of one starting pitcher to the time of three. It's a stretch at both ends. To the point, however, gray ink is defined by league-season top tens and there were not twenty regular starting pitchers in a league until the end of his career.

Which, of course, is why gray ink will overrate pitchers of the 1880s (or the 2-3 pitchers per team era) a bit. Gray ink for pitchers is next to meaningless for pitchers of the 1870s (one main pitcher per team); just being the primary pitcher for a top club means you get oodles of gray ink each year by default.

When teams had just two or three primary pitchers, finishing ninth or tenth in a statistic meant that the pitcher was about average. For the first half of the 20th century, however, finishing ninth or tenth was a sign of being a good pitcher that year. (When teams had just one primary pitcher, being ninth or tenth was a terrible performance. See Bobby Mathews in 1877 for a classic example of how bad a pitcher who picked up a majority of the gray ink points available to him could be.)

-----

There's an additional point to keep in mind when looking at ink scores of early pitchers. Saves were extremely rare in the 1800s; as late as 1905, Jim Buchanan led the AL in saves with two. Between 1876 and 1900, only two people managed to pick up five saves in a single season, and nobody earned six in a year. When one evaluates how good early pitchers were, saves don't mean much. However, saves count for 3 points in ink scores.

This isn't much of a factor for Jim McCormick, who had just one save over his career. However, it is a large factor for Tony Mullane. Mullane's black ink score is 28 -- but 15 of those points come from his five league titles in saves. In two of those seasons (1883 and 1888), Mullane had just one save, but still earned three black ink points.

That brings up the age old question...

Should we judge players by the conditions of their day or by our current conditions?

When we judge players, we should keep the conditions of their day in mind.

Sometimes, conditions favor pitchers over hitters; at other times, conditions favor hitters. Any change that helps hitters will hurt pitchers, and vice versa. When the foul-strike rule was introduced, for example, both batting averages and ERAs went down. This didn't mean that 90% of the hitters suddenly got much worse and 90% of the pitchers suddenly got much better. The decline was a predictable result of the rule change.

On the other hand, we should remember that perceptions of players were colored by the assumptions of their observers. Luis Aparicio was considered a great leadoff hitter because he stole a lot of bases. However, observers of the day wrongly assumed that base-stealing was more important than OBP in a leadoff hitter. Since Aparicio's OBP was worse than the league average, he was a poor choice for batting at the top of the order.

Ideally, we would judge players largely by the conditions of their day, while remaining guided by what we now know about what makes players valuable.