Bob Caruthers And The HOF

oldjudge · #1 01-02-2023, 12:29 PM

Parisian Bob sure deserves to get in--I hope he does.

Fred · #2 01-02-2023, 12:55 PM

Caruthers did have 10 years of service in the AA and NL. The last year (1893) he didn't pitch.

Besides Spalding (only had 8 total seasons played), he's the only pitcher to have over 200 wins and less than 100 losses. However Kershaw has a chance to do it if he retires before losing 13 more games (and assuming he wins 3 more games, which is more than likely). Pedro Martinez had a chance to be in that club, but he chose to pitch in 2009 and lost only one game (was 5-1) but it was his 100th career loss.

It's fun to look at the 19th century players that are SO close to being enshrined. Look at Bobby Mathews. 297 total wins. If he had 3 more, he'd already be in. Then there's Tony Mullane who is 16 wins shy of 300, however he was suspended for the entire 1885 season. He won 36 games in 1884 and he won 33 in 1886. More than likely, he'd have 300 wins if he played in 1885.

scotgreb · #3 01-02-2023, 01:38 PM

Every thread needs a card

Caruthers, Bob N162 PSA 2 26336249.jpg

Misunderestimated · #4 01-02-2023, 02:01 PM

Caruthers looked like a 19th Century Ohtanti contributing at the plate and on the mound at the highest level in late 1880's.... He was one of the best player on the American Association best team so there's that in his favor too, His problems as a candidate for the HOF are both the brevity of his career and the fact that he played most of it (including his best years) in the old American Association which has been regarded as a lower end "major league."
The first (and only) primary AA player to gain admissions to the HOF is Bid McPhee who wasn't selected until 2000.

G1911 · #5 01-02-2023, 01:53 PM

I think Caruthers is hurt by a couple of things.

1) He played in the AA, which the Hall doesn�t like very much. He was a mediocre pitcher in the NL (97 ERA+ = 3% below league average).

2) His career is very short. 19th century pitchers tended to hurl more innings and play fewer years than we are used to now. Caruthers only threw 2,800 innings though, which doesn�t compare well to his HOF contemporaries.

3) His stats start to recede when you look at his team. His primary HOF statistic is his win loss record, which has more to do with him playing on the Browns and Bridegrooms that were great teams than his hurling. When he went 40-11 to lead in wins and win percentage, his ERA+ was a good but not star 110 (his other 40 win year was an actually great season).

On the other hand, he was an excellent pitcher and he was as good of a batter or better than he was a pitcher. 134 OPS+ over 2,900 plate appearances is hardly insignificant. It probably is not fair to hold the AA against him too much, it�s a recognized major league in a period where the lines were rather fluid and thus should count.

I would vote for Caruthers as a lower end but deserving HOFer. I would probably vote for 6-10 other 19th century players before him though.

I think the year rule is a good rule for players who came up in the time of the major leagues. I think it should be waived for pioneers like Ross Barnes and James Creighton. It�s absurd that they aren�t in the Hall.

GaryPassamonte · #6 01-02-2023, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by G1911

I think Caruthers is hurt by a couple of things.

1) He played in the AA, which the Hall doesn�t like very much. He was a mediocre pitcher in the NL (97 ERA+ = 3% below league average).

2) His career is very short. 19th century pitchers tended to hurl more innings and play fewer years than we are used to now. Caruthers only threw 2,800 innings though, which doesn�t compare well to his HOF contemporaries.

3) His stats start to recede when you look at his team. His primary HOF statistic is his win loss record, which has more to do with him playing on the Browns and Bridegrooms that were great teams than his hurling. When he went 40-11 to lead in wins and win percentage, his ERA+ was a good but not star 110 (his other 40 win year was an actually great season).

On the other hand, he was an excellent pitcher and he was as good of a batter or better than he was a pitcher. 134 OPS+ over 2,900 plate appearances is hardly insignificant. It probably is not fair to hold the AA against him too much, it�s a recognized major league in a period where the lines were rather fluid and thus should count.

I would vote for Caruthers as a lower end but deserving HOFer. I would probably vote for 6-10 other 19th century players before him though.

I think the year rule is a good rule for players who came up in the time of the major leagues. I think it should be waived for pioneers like Ross Barnes and James Creighton. It�s absurd that they aren�t in the Hall.

+1

Leon · #7 01-05-2023, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldjudge

parisian bob sure deserves to get in--i hope he does.

+1
.

t206fanatic · #8 01-05-2023, 06:29 PM

hes got a great one in the n28 set

Kenny Cole · #9 01-05-2023, 07:26 PM

I would personally vote for Jim McCormick, Tony Mullane, and Bobby Matthews, in that order, before Caruthers. Maybe Charlie Buffington too. But here are some Caruthers cards.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
N28 Caruthers	Kenny Cole	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	0	01-17-2015 07:49 PM
N162 Bob Caruthers SGC 55	sycks22	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	0	07-10-2013 01:08 PM
FS: N28 Caruthers PSA NM 7 (MK)	Cerberus	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	4	04-23-2013 06:56 PM
FT: 1887 N28 Caruthers	cozmokramer	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	0	11-12-2009 08:25 AM
n28 Caruthers SGC 60 for Sale	Archive	19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T	2	12-19-2005 07:47 PM