Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cicotte, Van Haltren, Pinson, et al.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Cicotte, Van Haltren, Pinson, et al.

    I am making a list of players who I think should be in the Hall of Fame and I having trouble deciding these players. I am trying to be strict in my selections and have already given the boot to fifty-five Hall of Famers. What do you think about the following players? Would you put them in your personal Hall of Fame?

    Edd Roush (CF) - elected 1962
    Monte Ward (P - SS) - elected 1964
    Vic Willis (P) - elected 1995

    Eddie Cicotte (P)
    George Van Haltren (OF)
    Vada Pinson (OF)
    1992 & 1993 World Series Champions

  • #2
    I'm guessing you're advocating giving the boot to the first three?

    I really have no problem with Roush's selection. If we were going to be highly selective, Roush would be out, but if you want the Hall to include someone like Vada Pinson, then I definitely think there is a place for Roush.

    I'm eh on Monte Ward, couldn't really care either way (that's generally the way I am for many 19th century players).

    Vic Willis is an uninspired Hall of Famer, but I could think of a good number of other pitchers that I'd give the boot to before Willis. That being said, Willis is still pretty far down on my pitchers list.

    As for the players you want in...

    No place for Cicotte whatsoever. He was the linchpin in throwing the series and he performed his job admirably (or disgracefully depending on how you look at it). Cicotte is exactly where he belongs. Even without the ban, Cicotte's case would be borderline. His ERA+ is a nice 123 (though it would have fallen with some more decline seasons). He certainly had some impressive seasons. But his win totals just weren't as impressive as his most of his peers that made the Hall, and that seems to be the first and foremost standard for judging pitchers most of the time (though it shouldn't be at all). If he got to 250, I'd say he'd probably make it, but given that he was 37 when he was banned and was sitting on 208, 250 was still something of a reach.

    George Van Haltren falls under my general 19th century apathy. However, given some of his peers that are in, he does have a fairly good case.

    Vada Pinson is a player I'd like and one of those players that I'd like to find some really good arguments for. Alas, he comes up short. He started out with a bang and then fizzled. There are at least a few CFers I'd advocate putting in before Pinson - Dawson (I have him in CF), Murphy, Wynn, Berger, and then I'd probably have Pinson on the same level as Cedeno, Lynn, maybe even Butler. Plus Bernie Williams, Jim Edmonds, and Andruw Jones all likely pass Pinson when they're eligible.

    Comment


    • #3
      I agree with XX on Roush, if you want make a more selective HOF then he's out but he's an okay selection by the Hall's actual standards. He's actually like an earlier Vada Pinson, though probably better.

      Monte Ward definitely belongs in. He was a great pitcher and shortstop, and he has numerous contributions to the game. It's very likely the game we know today wouldn't exist without Monte Ward. Surefire HOFer, he may still be in if I cut the Hall down to like 25 members.

      Vic Willis is one of the worst pitchers in the HOF, liberated of that status by Rube Marquard and Jesse Haines. He had a few good years, but never was that dominant, and has a very short career (don't let the 3996 IP fool you, that's actually a very low total for a deadball player who's supposed to be a HOFer). Dean Chance may be a better pitcher. Would probably be on my list of top 15 worst players in the Hall.

      I agree with XX on Cicotte, no place for him, or any of the players involved in that scandal IMO.

      Van Haltren is an interesting case, but personally there are many other CFers I'd put in before him. He played his whole career in extrmely weak leauges (playing teams depleted by syndicate ownership half the time). I don't see him as a pariticularly great hitter. 121 OPS+ for a player in that era just doesn't cut if for me, and from what I gather he was a good defensive outfielder, but not anything great.

      Vada Pinson...I like Pinson, but he's not my kind of player, he wasn't that valubale of a hitter outside of a few years, and his peak is lacking. Plus, he really one had four good years (1959, 1961, 1963, and 1965). Between those years and after 1965 he really wasn't anything special at all. His case is mostly longevity and career value, and most of it is just really dead weight. You'd be much better off taking a look at his center field contemporary out there in Houston.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 125osprey
        I am making a list of players who I think should be in the Hall of Fame and I having trouble deciding these players. I am trying to be strict in my selections and have already given the boot to fifty-five Hall of Famers. What do you think about the following players? Would you put them in your personal Hall of Fame?

        Edd Roush (CF) - elected 1962
        Monte Ward (P - SS) - elected 1964
        Vic Willis (P) - elected 1995

        Eddie Cicotte (P)
        George Van Haltren (OF)
        Vada Pinson (OF)
        John Monte Ward HAS to be in the HOF. 538280 is exactly right on this. COMBINE his shortstop and pitching career. How on earth is he not a HOFer? He's ARGUABLY a HOF shortstop alone and was a GREAT pitcher who very well might have made it on that alone if he had pitched more than seven seasons (with more IP and an ERA 2/3 a run less than Koufax, btw.) That's not without factoring in any of his other contributions to the game. In my mind, it's a disgrace that it took that long to get him in.
        Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
        I hope that's all.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 538280
          Vic Willis is one of the worst pitchers in the HOF, liberated of that status by Rube Marquard and Jesse Haines. He had a few good years, but never was that dominant, and has a very short career (don't let the 3996 IP fool you, that's actually a very low total for a deadball player who's supposed to be a HOFer). Dean Chance may be a better pitcher. Would probably be on my list of top 15 worst players in the Hall.
          While I disagree that Willis is that poor a selection, off the top of my head, I'll concede that he's in the bottom third, maybe even fourth quartile of Hall-of-Fame pitchers.

          What I do want to point out is that Willis' inning pitched are good enough for 7th among all pitchers in the deadball era (1901-1919). Let's go ahead and add a decade on each end of that timeframe, though, just to include the whole career of any pitcher one could reasonably consider a "deadball" pitcher.

          Most Innings Pitched, 1891-1930
          7,208-1/3 Cy Young
          5,914-2/3 Walter Johnson
          5,189 Grover Cleveland Alexander
          4,780-1/3 Christy Mathewson
          4,633 Kid Nichols
          4,495-2/3 Eddie Plank
          4,388 Jack Powell
          4,161 Eppa Rixey
          3,997 Vic Willis

          That's a truly incredible number of innings for anyone. Now...I'm not saying that all those innings a Hall-of-Famer make - Jack Powell had 4,388 IP and he's not a Hall-of-Famer - but Willis' longevity on the mound is a point in favor, not against, his election.

          I don't quite understand what 538280 is driving at regarding what kind of IP totals a deadball era pitcher "ought" to have to be considered Hall-quality. Not unless you think Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, Nichols, Plank and Young are the only deserving pitchers from that era?
          "It is a simple matter to erect a Hall of Fame, but difficult to select the tenants." -- Ken Smith
          "I am led to suspect that some of the electorate is very dumb." -- Henry P. Edwards
          "You have a Hall of Fame to put people in, not keep people out." -- Brian Kenny
          "There's no such thing as a perfect ballot." -- Jay Jaffe

          Comment


          • #6
            Cicotte is an absolute "no freaking way".

            John Montgomery Ward is one of the true pioneers of the game and one of the few deserving non-players to be in the HoF.

            Roush is pretty weak and I wouldn't mind seeing him booted, but he is substantially better than Vada Pinson.

            Willis is a pretty weak selection and probably shouldn't have been made.

            Van Haltren has HoF credentials, but if you are going to look at 19th century players you have to look at Pete Browning before you look at Van Haltren.
            Buck O'Neil: The Monarch of Baseball

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by KCGHOST
              Cicotte is an absolute "no freaking way".

              John Montgomery Ward is one of the true pioneers of the game and one of the few deserving non-players to be in the HoF.

              Roush is pretty weak and I wouldn't mind seeing him booted, but he is substantially better than Vada Pinson.

              Willis is a pretty weak selection and probably shouldn't have been made.

              Van Haltren has HoF credentials, but if you are going to look at 19th century players you have to look at Pete Browning before you look at Van Haltren.
              John Ward is in as a shortstop.
              I've got Pinson miles ahead of Roush.
              I've got no problem with Willis.
              Browning misses on the longevity department, and therefore, behind Van Haltren in mine.
              Johnson and now Goligoski gone.
              I hope that's all.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Chancellor

                That's a truly incredible number of innings for anyone. Now...I'm not saying that all those innings a Hall-of-Famer make - Jack Powell had 4,388 IP and he's not a Hall-of-Famer - but Willis' longevity on the mound is a point in favor, not against, his election.
                Willis was a workhorse, he did pitch a lot of innings, but I still maintain his career was pretty short for the time. He pitched only 13 years and was done at age 36. Of course, he did pitch a significant time in every one of those years.

                I don't quite understand what 538280 is driving at regarding what kind of IP totals a deadball era pitcher "ought" to have to be considered Hall-quality. Not unless you think Alexander, Johnson, Mathewson, Nichols, Plank and Young are the only deserving pitchers from that era?
                Willis has enough innings to be a HOFer, but in order to get in with that many he needs better quality. 118 ERA+ is good, but for the easy to dominate deadball era it's not overly impressive. Like I said, I don't see any real big difference between Willis and Dean Chance, who no one really ever mentions as a HOFer. Willis did pitch longer, even in context, but really wasn't any more dominating. Chance had six top 10 IP finishes, 4 top fives, and two league leads. Willis had 9 top tens, 5 top fives, and one league lead. Chance has a 119 ERA+, one point better than Willis' and much better with LQ adjustments. Chance in 1964 was way better than Willis ever was.

                Willis is better than Dean Chance, but it is pretty close and for a supposed HOFer to be in the same neighborhood as Chance isn't a good thing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 538280
                  Willis has enough innings to be a HOFer, but in order to get in with that many he needs better quality. 118 ERA+ is good, but for the easy to dominate deadball era it's not overly impressive. Like I said, I don't see any real big difference between Willis and Dean Chance, who no one really ever mentions as a HOFer. Willis did pitch longer, even in context, but really wasn't any more dominating. Chance had six top 10 IP finishes, 4 top fives, and two league leads. Willis had 9 top tens, 5 top fives, and one league lead. Chance has a 119 ERA+, one point better than Willis' and much better with LQ adjustments. Chance in 1964 was way better than Willis ever was.

                  Willis is better than Dean Chance, but it is pretty close and for a supposed HOFer to be in the same neighborhood as Chance isn't a good thing.
                  Willis pitched almost 2000 more innings than Chance. If Chance pitched those 2000 innings, you think his ERA+ would still be 119? Very, very, very doubtful.

                  Willis ranks 39th all-time in innings pitched. Do you know how many other pitchers made the top 40 in innings pitched despite only playing 13 seasons or less? 5 - Mickey Welch, John Clarkson, Old Hoss Radbourn, Tony Mullane, and Jim McCormick. Of these 6 players, Willis is the only one to have played in the 20th Century.
                  Last edited by DoubleX; 04-04-2006, 05:06 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DoubleX
                    Willis pitched almost 2000 more innings than Chance. If Chance pitched those 2000 innings, you think his ERA+ would still be 119? Very, very, very doubtful.
                    If Chance pitched in the deadball era, you think he'd have at least 1500 more innings? Very, very, very likely. And his ERA+ would probably go up too.

                    Comment

                    Ad Widget

                    Collapse
                    Working...
                    X