2017-36

Fortune and Fame

         "Fortune" meaning luck, and "Fame" meaning the Hall of Fame. 

              We have two basic questions here:

              1)  What pitchers got into the Hall of Fame substantially because of good luck? And

              2)  What pitchers may have missed the Hall of Fame substantially because of poor luck?  

              There are 82 pitchers who are in the Hall of Fame.     However, of those 82 pitchers: 

              Ten were primarily Negro League pitchers, whose records we cannot evaluate,

              Four were primarily relievers, not including Dennis Eckersley, who we will keep in the fold at least for the moment; this article is about starting pitchers, and

              Five were elected as executives (Clark Griffith, Al Spalding), umpires (Hank O’Day), pitch inventors (Candy Cummings) or infielders and managers (Monte Ward), so we won’t worry about them. 

              That leaves us with 63 Hall of Fame pitchers, elected as pitchers and documented with stats.  

              Of those 63 Hall of Fame pitchers, 38 had better career won-lost records than their deserved won-lost records, although in some cases only a tiny bit better.   Cy Young, for example, has an actual won-lost record of 511-316, and a "deserved" record of 509-319, which is about the same.   Steve Carlton has an actual record of 329-244, and a deserved record of 337-258, and Sandy Koufax has an actual record of 165-87, but a deserved record of 167-98.    There are 25 Hall of Fame pitchers who were, as best I can figure this, actually BETTER than their career won-lost records, including a couple of surprises.    38-25.

              The 63 Hall of Fame pitchers can be sorted into five classes:

              1)  Obvious Hall of Famers,

              2)  Perhaps not obvious, but deserving Hall of Famers who didn’t get there by luck,

              3)  Guys who were lucky, I think, but the luck didn’t have anything much to do with the won-lost record,

              4)  Guys who were a little bit lucky in the won-lost category, I think, but it’s a debatable point whether this is what got them into the Hall of Fame, and

              5)  Guys who pretty clearly made the Hall of Fame based on won-lost records that probably do not quite represent their actual ability.

1)  Obvious Hall of Famers

              By my count, 30 of the 63 Hall of Fame pitchers are too obvious for us to waste any time talking about them.    Those 30 are, alphabetically, Pete Alexander, Steve Carlton, John Clarkson, Bob Feller, Whitey Ford, Pud Galvin, Bob Gibson, Tom Glavine, Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Ferguson Jenkins, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson, Tim Keefe, Sandy Koufax, Greg Maddux, Pedro Martinez, Christy Mathewson, Kid Nichols, Phil Niekro, Jim Palmer, Gaylord Perry, Eddie Plank, Old Hoss Radbourn, Robin Roberts, Nolan Ryan, Tom Seaver, Warren Spahn, Don Sutton and Cy Young.  

2)  Perhaps not obvious, but deserving Hall of Famers who didn’t get there by luck

              By my count, there are 17 of these.   Most of those, 14 of the 17, were actually pitchers who were UN-lucky in their career won-lost records, and in many cases their selection to the Hall of Fame was delayed because they did not have quite the won-lost records they deserved.   I will mention 12 of those quickly, and then we will get to the other six individually.  The 12 who were actually better than their won-lost records were Bert Blyleven, Jim Bunning, Don Drysdale, Dennis Eckersley, Red Faber, Ted Lyons, Hal Newhouser, Eppa Rixey, Dazzy Vance, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh and Vic Willis.  

              Plus two that you might not expect.   The two you might not expect are Red Ruffing and John Smoltz.  

              I am very, very surprised to see that Red Ruffing, who was the #1 right-hander for the Yankees of the late 1930s, was actually NOT lucky in his career won-lost record; however, I am now convinced that this statement is true, and I will stand by it.   The Yankees averaged 102 wins a season from 1936 to 1939, and Ruffing went 20-12, 20-7, 21-7 and 21-7 for those teams, so I would certainly have assumed that the team was carrying Ruffing more than that Ruffing was actually a great pitcher.  

              But Ruffing had a career won-lost record of 273-225—and a DESERVED career won-lost record of 276-225, actually a tiny bit better than his real record.   In the years 1936 to 1939, Ruffing did not "deserve" to win 20 games.   His deserved records were 19-12, 19-10, 19-10 and 19-8.   So, yeah, the team was helping him, but Ruffing was also pretty good.  

              But Ruffing was also a rotation anchor for the Boston Red Sox from 1925 to 1929, and our records in those five seasons were 47-105, 46-107, 51-103, 57-96 and 58-96.     If you add in the four years with the Yankees 1936-1939, that doesn’t get him back to even.    Ruffing was traded to the Yankees in 1930, but in his first six years with the Yankees (1930 to 1935) the Yankees won the American League pennant only once.  

              Ruffing’s luckiest two seasons, in his won-lost record, were 1941, when he was 15-6 but should have been 11-10 (+8), and 1932, when he was 19-11 but should have been 15-15 (+7.5).   But from 1925 to 1929 he was -7.2, -8.5, -6.4, -16.5, and -9.6.   He had three seasons which were more un-lucky than any of his seasons was lucky.  In 1928 he was a workhorse, and should have been 17-16, but was actually 10-25 (-16.5).   In 1929 he should have been 12-16, but was actually 9-22.    On balance, he WASN’T lucky.   On balance, he was about where he should have been.

              The other guy like that is John Smoltz; your instinct is to think "John Smoltz—great Braves teams—some luck there."   But

              (a) Smoltz pitched in rotation for the Braves for three years when they were a last-place team, 1988 to 1990,

              (b) The Braves were a great team, yes, but what made them a great team was their starting rotation.   They had some good players in their starting lineup, yes, and then they had some Mark Lemkes and some Michael Tuckers and some Jeff Francoeurs and some Sid Breams and some Robert Ficks and some Greg Olsons and Jeff Treadways. 

              (c)  You have to remember:  Smoltz was a reliever for several years.    He was 0-2 in 2003 when, based on his innings and effectiveness, he should have been 7-1.   He was 0-1 the next year, when he could have been 7-3.  

              On balance, Smoltz’ deserved won-lost record (247-154) is quite a bit better than his actual won-lost record of 213-155.   I think the voters knew that, and I think they viewed his won-lost record—like Eckersley’s—as not a full picture of what he had accomplished.  

              There are three pitchers who. . .well, yes, they were lucky in their won-lost records, but they were also really good and they didn’t get into the Hall of Fame because they were lucky.   Two of those were Three Finger Brown and Amos Rusie, no comments necessary on those.    The other one is Waite Hoyt.   Like Ruffing, I am very surprised that Waite Hoyt didn’t benefit more than he did by pitching much of his career with the Yankees, but (a) he pitched ten years with the Yankees in a twenty-year career, and (b) my analysis does not show him to be all that far ahead of where he deserved to be.   He had a career won-lost record of 237-182, and a deserved won-lost record of 236-198.   There was a little bit of luck there, yes, but when you win 237 games and deserve to win 236, one can’t really say that luck was the key element.  

              3)  Guys who were lucky, I think, but the luck didn’t have anything much to do with the won-lost record

              I think there are three of these—Rube Marquard, Stan Coveleski and Addie Joss.   I don’t think any of those guys deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, and I think they are lucky to be included, but it’s not really "won-lost luck"; it’s mostly luck of a different kind.   Marquard was 201-177 in his career, probably deserved to be 199-177, which is almost the same.   Joss was 160-97, probably deserved to be 159-104.   Coveleski was 215-142, probably deserved to be 209-145.  

              4)  Guys who were a little bit lucky in the won-lost category, I think, but it’s a debatable point, and maybe they would have made the Hall of Fame playing on average teams.     Those four are Lefty Gomez, Juan Marichal, Joe McGinnity and Mickey Welch.    If you can figure out this chart on your own, that would save me the trouble of explaining it:

              Mickey Welch in his career would be the luckiest pitcher in baseball history, except that I devalued the scores of 19th century pitchers.   You have to devalue the scores of 19th century pitchers, or they dominate everything; whatever you are figuring, the greatest ever or the worst ever will be a 19th century guy.    You can’t take their records all that seriously.   You can argue that these four guys wouldn’t be in the Hall of Fame if it wasn’t for their won-lost records, but you know. . .you can argue it either way.  

              5)  Guys who pretty clearly made the Hall of Fame based on won-lost records that probably do not quite represent their actual ability.

              OK, we have accounted for 54 of the 63 Hall of Fame pitchers are this point.   That leaves nine.   There are nine guys who, in my opinion, pretty clearly would not be in the Hall of Fame, had they been evaluated based on the won-lost records they deserved to have, rather than the Won-Lost records they wound up with.   Taking those one at a time:

1.  Chief Bender

              These are Chief Bender’s actual and deserved won-lost records.  

              Bender was a good pitcher, certainly, but he was a good pitcher pitching for really good teams.   His won-lost records are not wildly inflated, but he’s kind of a border-line selection even WITH the help.   Without it, I don’t think he would have made it.

              But I could be wrong.   Dazzy Vance, Jack Chesbro and Rube Waddell did make the Hall of Fame with won-lost records similar to what Bender’s should have been.   But Bender, without luck, would never have had a 20-win season. 

2.  Jack Chesbro

              Chesbro made the Hall of Fame, of course, primarily because he "won"" 41 games in 1904.   It’s a completely phony record on multiple counts, but if had won the 34 games that year that he deserved to win. . . .don’t think he would be in there.

3.  Dizzy Dean

              Dizzy was a really good pitcher, but he wasn’t any better pitcher than Wes Ferrell or Lon Warneke.   What got him into the Hall of Fame was (1) he was really colorful, (2) he won 30 games, and (3) Hollywood made a movie about him.    His career was really short for a Hall of Famer, and if you take any one of those away from him, he doesn’t make it.  

4.  Burleigh Grimes

              The most notable beneficiary of the rule which allowed a few pitchers to continue to throw the spitball after 1920, Grimes appears to have benefitted not so much from being on great teams as from simple, uncomplicated luck.   It doesn’t even out over time.   Grimes wasn’t much more than an average pitcher—in a very long career, but would he have gotten elected with a record of 245-236? 

5.  Jesse Haines

              Jesse Haines is in the Hall of Fame because he invented underwear.   No, seriously, he is in the Hall of Fame because (1) he was a hero of the 1926 World Series, and also pitched a complete-game victory in the 1930 World Series, and (2) he had former teammates on the Veterans Committee in 1970.   But had he been working with the won-lost record that he should have had, it would have been very difficult for his buddies to pull him over the line.  

6.   Catfish Hunter

              I adore Catfish Hunter, and it pains me greatly to put him on this list.   I would leave him off the list, but other people do sabermetrics, too, and they would rat me out.  

7.  Bob Lemon

              The Indians in the Bob Feller/Bob Lemon/Mike Garcia era had very low park factors (1946-73; 1947-87; 1948-90; 1949-87; 1950-88; 1951-80; 1952-76).   The sportswriters of that era did not understand that, and attributed ALL of the success of that team to the pitching, when in reality it was shared excellence of pitchers and hitters.   Lemon was a good pitcher, but not a legitimate Hall of Famer, I don’t think.  

              But Lemon was a very good manager, and he had one of the game’s all-time best lines.   "I never took the game home with me," he said.   "I always left it in a bar somewhere on the road."      

8.  Herb Pennock

              Pennock was 19-8 with the ’27 Yankees, probably should have been 14-10.  In 21 years in the major leagues, Pennock had "+" luck 16 times.   It adds up.  

9.  Early Wynn

              The Hall of Fame door sprang open for Early when he won his 300^th game, but he might have made the Hall of Fame with 290 wins, or 285.   With 273 wins and only 23 games over .500, he might not have made it, and then also, he was extremely fortunate to go 22-10 in his Cy Young season, 1959.    Given average luck, it seems to me doubtful that the Hall of Fame would have called his number.  

              Tomorrow, or in the next installment of this, I will write about pitchers who could possibly have made the Hall of Fame, given better luck.   But because I don’t want that article to be a disappointment to you, I want to say this now.   I don’t believe that there is any such thing as a pitcher who clearly would be in the Hall of Fame, had his luck been better.   I have searched baseball history for such a creature; I have not found one.  

              In the next article, I’ll try to explain why that is true, and also, I’ll look at the best candidates to be described in that way, the guys who, I suppose, COULD be in the Hall of Fame, had they had better luck.