HoF Pitchers 1920-1949

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

If you were take the Hall of Fame as it stands today with the power to induct/eliminate pitchers whose career majority came during 1920-1949, what would you do?

Careful: I am not asking which of those pitchers you would induct into some sort of exclusive Hall of Fame where only 1920-1949 pitchers are eligible. I'm asking what you would do given the current, entire Hall of Fame with only the power to alter those who pitched a majority of their careers in 1920-1949.

[jalbright]

I assume this isn't about Hubbell or Grove.

Some might argue against Lyons, Ruffing or Vance, but I wouldn't join them.

I would agree with those who regard the omission of Wes Ferrell as a serious flaw among that group.

I would say Haines, Rixey, Grimes, Pennock and Hoyt are poor choices, and if we were doing it all over again, I wouldn't include them. However, in the context of the institution, I wouldn't throw them out--it just does too much harm to the institution.

I'd say the choices of Gomez, Coveleski and Faber are shaky, but I'm even less against their inclusion than the above group.

Anyone else you had in mind?

[DoubleX]

I would say Haines, Rixey, Grimes, Pennock and Hoyt are poor choices, and if we were doing it all over again, I wouldn't include them. However, in the context of the institution, I wouldn't throw them out--it just does too much harm to the institution.

I'd say the choices of Gomez, Coveleski and Faber are shaky, but I'm even less against their inclusion than the above group.

I never understand why Rixey often gets lumped in with Haines, Grimes, Pennock, and Hoyt. Rixey was a much better pitcher than all of them, and was so for longer.

ERA+
Rixey: 115 (4500 IP)
Hoyt: 112 (3750 IP)
Haines: 109 (3200 IP)
Grimes: 108 (4200 IP)
Pennock: 106 (3600 IP)

Career Pitching WAR
Rixey: 51.2
Hoyt: 47.0
Grimes: 37.2
Pennock: 36.9
Haines: 33.8

Top 3, 5, 10 Pitching WAR
Rixey: 16.1, 24.5, 42.3 (Rixey accumulated more value in 10 years than Grimes, Pennock, and Haines did in their careers).
Pennock: 18.1, 26.2, 38
Grimes: 17.0, 25.8, 40.2
Hoyt: 15.2, 23.1, 38.9
Haines: 13.3, 18.6, 28.5

Rixey was never a truly dominant pitcher, but he was a very good pitcher for a very long time, and for a decade was routinely in the top 5 to 10 in most categories. As the Hall of Fame goes, I think he's someone who scoots just over the border, but at the very least, deserves better recognition than being lumped in with Pennock, Grimes, Hoyt, and Haines, all of whom I view as clear mistakes.

Also, I still don't know why Stan Coveleski doesn't get more recognition. A 128 ERA+ in 3100 IP and frequently among the top of the league (if not the top) in various categories for a decade, should put him clearly over the line, IMO.

[Freakshow]

I never understand why Rixey often gets lumped in with Haines, Grimes, Pennock, and Hoyt. Rixey was a much better pitcher than all of them, and was so for longer.

Totally agree with this. In addition:

Rixey lost the 1918 season to the war, serving with the Chemical Warfare Division in Europe. His return from the military, [June 1919] marked by rustiness and dissatisfaction with Phillie managers Jack Coombs and Gavy Cravath, led to two abysmal seasons (6-12 and 11-22) with last-place teams.

Players fortunate enough to avoid military service in 1918 often had career years against the weakened competition that year.

[J W]

I certainly have Rixey rated higher than the other four listed with him. I've got him much closer to Faber. My guess is that his winning percentage turns a lot of people off... although I wouldn't guess Jim falls in that category.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/r/rixeyep01.shtml

Look at Rixey's 1920 season. He went 11-22 that year despite pitching to a 97 ERA+ and 1.256 WHIP. According to more advanced analysis, his team (Phillies) had a particularly bad defense and his pitching value was better than advertised. But even as advertised, you'd think he would deserve better than a .333 percentage. To me, this season encapsulates his career. Other seasons tell a different story, giving him a higher DERA than his neutralized ERA because the team behind him was better... however it's up and down:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/rixeyep01.shtml

Ultimately, Rixey's performance showed better than his results. He should have had around a .540 winning percentage instead of .515. That little adjustment, when combined with his work-horse durability would make his career look much better at first glance.

[J W]

Also, I still don't know why Stan Coveleski doesn't get more recognition. A 128 ERA+ in 3100 IP and frequently among the top of the league (if not the top) in various categories for a decade, should put him clearly over the line, IMO.

The first thing I think of is that some people may disagree with Coveleski being a grandfathered spitballer - something that also affects Faber.

[DoubleX]

The first thing I think of is that some people may disagree with Coveleski being a grandfathered spitballer - something that also affects Faber.

That is out there, though I don't know how much of a hangup that is for people. Coveleski's performance was pretty consistent before and after the pitch was outlawed. Granted, if he couldn't throw the spitball anymore after it was banned, those years may have been very different for him, but it was in the rules.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I've found that a lot of the pitchers during this era had trouble staying consistent (with the exception of the usual elites). Rixey did a pretty good job with this so I would keep him.

Pennock and Grimes would be gone right away

[dgarza]

I would agree with those who regard the omission of Wes Ferrell as a serious flaw among that group.

I don't think there are any serious omissions from the 20s and 40s.
Wes Ferrell, Bucky Walters, Tommy Bridges, Wilbur Cooper (who half fits in the 20s), they all have solid HOF cases, but they're still borderline HOFers at best.

As for mistakes, Andy Cooper might be one.

[jjpm74]

That is out there, though I don't know how much of a hangup that is for people. Coveleski's performance was pretty consistent before and after the pitch was outlawed. Granted, if he couldn't throw the spitball anymore after it was banned, those years may have been very different for him, but it was in the rules.

Coveleski was allowed to continue to use the spitball after it was outlawed, so the fact that he was consistent before and after the pitch was outlawed is irrelevant.

[J W]

To answer the question as to what I would do with said power, I agree with Jim. It should take an extraordinary revelation to throw an existing member out of the Hall. Something along the lines of complete identity fraud. Otherwise it would be a cruel and unnecessary thing to do.

That only leaves the addition of more pitchers to an already over-represented group. The pitchers that dgarza listed are a good start to consider, as well as Urban Shocker and (if you count their tenure) Jack Quinn, Virgil Trucks and Cannonball Dick Redding. Tough call - I like an inclusive HOF, but it doesn't sit well with me to include everyone I deem "worthy" within such a narrow group of parameters.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Combining his offense and pitching, Wes Ferrell had a 7-8 year peak that rivals any 2nd tier HOFer in terms of WAR, Win Shares, WARP, or whatever-the-heck you want to use. Ferrell was a dominating baseball player for almost a decade and deserves EASY enshrinement.

I'd say yes to Hubbell, Grove, Lyons, Vance, Ruffing , Coveleski, and Ferrell. Faber is very borderline (could go either way), and everybody else is on the outside looking in.

[jalbright]

I forgot Dizzy Dean, who has an extremely high peak for 5-6 years (though not quite as good as Hubbell or Grove), and as such is someone I'd keep.

As for Rixey, it's not his winning percentage that influences me. I look mostly at wins above average--and Rixey doesn't do well. I zero out below average years, but Rixey still only scores 19.7 for his career, which isn't what I want to see. His best three seasons in WAA total 9.1, well below what I expect of a HOFer, and his best five consecutive seasons in WAA comes in at 11.2, also well below what I want to see. That's why I'm not impressed with him and lump him with the others mentioned.