Eddie Cicotte's HOF chances - should he get in? Will he?

gregndodgers · #1 05-16-2025, 10:06 AM

There are 27 pitchers who are in the HOF rated below him in terms of JAWS, so yea his chances are low. LoL

campyfan39 · #2 05-16-2025, 11:00 AM

My only pre-war card!

gregndodgers · #3 05-16-2025, 02:08 PM

Although I believe Cicotte has HOF worthy numbers, the bigger issue is whether his acts in helping throw the World Series constitute such reprehensible moral turpitude, that either he should not be eligible for the HOF or that it is sufficient for voters to refrain from electing him.

�This is terrible for my family,� Cicotte said. �My poor kids � oh, why did I do it? I�ve lived a terrible year in the last 12 months.�

�He admitted that the whole plan was his idea. �I refused to pitch a ball until I got the money. It [the $10,000 in cash] was placed under my pillow in the hotel the night before the first game of the Series. Every one [of the players] was paid individually, and the same scheme was used to deliver it.�

�Cicotte admitted to deliberately hitting the leadoff batter in Game 1 and that in Game 4, he purposefully intercepted a throw from Jackson in the outfield that would have caught a Reds player, and made a wild throw to first, both resulting in two runs for the Reds, who won 2-0. He said he and fellow pitcher Williams also ignored pitch signals given by catcher Ray Schalk, who was not in on the scam.�

�For the Series, the Sox�s so-called ace Cicotte yielded 19 hits and 9 runs (7 earned) in 21 2/3rd innings, with one win (game 6) and two losses (games 1 and 4).�

https://themobmuseum.org/blog/the-bl...0-years-later/

So given that many players who were later elected to the HOF with a checkered past and morally reprehensible conduct, what standard should be used for the voters? Should it be a personal one or an objective standard that we can all determine?

For me, this is the issue.

gregndodgers · #4 05-16-2025, 03:00 PM

�From September 15, 1916, to July 25, 1917, Cicotte pitched 25 straight starts in which he allowed three earned runs or less with at least six innings pitched, which retroactively became known as the quality start. Cicotte's 25 game streak was the most for a half-century until Bob Gibson passed him.�

Among all eligible pitchers, his career ERA of 2.38 is 24th lowest overall in major league history.

World Series champion (1917)
2� AL wins leader (1917, 1919)
AL ERA leader (1917)
Pitched a no-hitter on April 14, 1917

gregndodgers · #5 05-16-2025, 04:28 PM

Does revenge constitute moral turpitude? If you had a provision in your employment contract that would grant you an additional $10,000 for achieving a certain performance level, and your boss deliberately stopped you from achieving that level, would you be mad?

There is evidence that Eddie was deliberately held out of games so that he would not win 30 games and get his $10,000 bonus. Hmmm. It’s interesting that his take in the scandal was $10,000.

In 1919, Eddie pitched every fifth day of the season (and sometimes every 3rd day), so by pitching that often and pitching extremely well, he was able to amass 29 wins that season.

In fact, on September 5, 1919, he won his 28th game. At that point, the White Sox still had 19 games left to play. Those 19 games would allow Cicotte to start five more games. Inexplicably, he did not pitch again until September 19, a game in which he won his 29th game. But the long absence caused him to miss two starts.

Anyway, he still had two games after his 29th win to win one game. What happened next? After routinely pitching all nine innings of his starts (he pitched at least 9 innings in 26 of his 40 starts that season), he was pulled early and only pitched a total of 9 innings in his final two starts.

So of the final five games he was scheduled to start, he started and pitched in only three of those games. Then after wining his 29th game, he started two more games but was taken out early in both of those games.

So the theory is that since Comisky deliberately prevented Eddie from getting his bonus, Eddie decided to stick it to Comisky and prevent him from winning the World Series.

If this theory is true, was Eddie justified? Does the injustice of being prevented from receiving what is justly yours a valid reason for this type of revenge? I think many would say yes. So the nature of Eddie’s act may be wrongly placed. Instead of committing an act to gain money by throwing a game it becomes an act of revenge!

ThomasL · #6 05-16-2025, 04:52 PM

greg- I appreciate your posts and case you are making for Cicotte...however you are posting outdated notions as historians view the 1919 WS which many have considered myths and not factual now. Cicotte being deliberately held out of games to stop a bonus from kicking in is a major one for example.

Read this
https://sabr.org/eight-myths-out

Also the plot to throw the WS was put in motion well before Cicotte had a chance to win 30 games...so that could not have been his motive. Gandil and Cicotte met with Bill Burns in Boston Sept 19th to discuss details of a possible fix if the Sox won the pennant...his last two starts when he could have won his 30th game the plot was already made to throw the series.

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...scandal-brews/

gregndodgers · #7 05-16-2025, 05:14 PM

He won his 28th game on September 5 and then did not pitch another game until September 19!!!! Unless he was injured, it appears to me that the long layoff was deliberate attempt to keep his wins down. Is it a coincidence that on September 19 after being held out of two starts he started conspiring against Comisky? I think not.

Also, according to this source, Cicotte and two players including Gandil met privately on the 18th discuss a possible fix.

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...scandal-brews/

darwinbulldog · #8 05-17-2025, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

There are 27 pitchers who are in the HOF rated below him in terms of JAWS, so yea his chances are low. LoL

Alright, fine, you can vote for him. But first you have to vote for Roger Clemens, Jim McCormick, Curt Schilling, Tommy Bond, Charlie Buffinton, Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers, Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Jim Whitney, Luis Tiant, Bobby Mathews, David Cone, and Urban Shocker.

gregndodgers · #9 05-17-2025, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Alright, fine, you can vote for him. But first you have to vote for Roger Clemens, Jim McCormick, Curt Schilling, Tommy Bond, Charlie Buffinton, Tony Mullane, Bob Caruthers, Wes Ferrell, Rick Reuschel, Kevin Brown, Jim Whitney, Luis Tiant, Bobby Mathews, David Cone, and Urban Shocker.

I would vote yes for all the pitchers on this list that I actually saw pitch including Clemens, Schilling, Kevin Brown, Tiant, and Cone. They were all top pitchers during their era, and unless they killed a person with no justification, I would let a person in. For the ones like the black Sox who threw games, a lifetime ban is sufficient punishment. For steroid users, take their stats pre steroid use, and use only those stats to vote yes or no.

darwinbulldog · #10 05-18-2025, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregndodgers

I would vote yes for all the pitchers on this list that I actually saw pitch including Clemens, Schilling, Kevin Brown, Tiant, and Cone. They were all top pitchers during their era, and unless they killed a person with no justification, I would let a person in. For the ones like the black Sox who threw games, a lifetime ban is sufficient punishment. For steroid users, take their stats pre steroid use, and use only those stats to vote yes or no.

That's fine. Almost all of them should be in. But the votes are quite limited, so if we're going by JAWS it'll take many more years before Cicotte is the most deserving pitcher not in the Hall. In the meantime you also have to vote for Greinke, Kershaw, Sherzer, and Verlander.

And that's if you decide to use all your votes for pitchers. Otherwise I'm not sure he could get it in within the next 40 years. But they keep changing the committee rules so who knows.

jayshum · #11 05-18-2025, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That's fine. Almost all of them should be in. But the votes are quite limited, so if we're going by JAWS it'll take many more years before Cicotte is the most deserving pitcher not in the Hall. In the meantime you also have to vote for Greinke, Kershaw, Sherzer, and Verlander.

And that's if you decide to use all your votes for pitchers. Otherwise I'm not sure he could get it in within the next 40 years. But they keep changing the committee rules so who knows.

Greinke, Kershaw, Sherzer, and Verlander will be on the BBWAA ballot not the Era Committee ballot so they won't impact potential votes for Cicotte. However, you're right that there are many other pitchers (and position players) likely to receive votes before someone decides to vote for him.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
FS: W514 Eddie Cicotte PSA 7	babraham	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	05-05-2024 01:11 PM
FS - T205 Eddie Cicotte PSA 3	wrm	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	3	02-20-2023 08:25 AM
Eddie Cicotte	ezez420	T206 cards B/S/T	2	11-06-2014 01:19 PM
FS: E95 Eddie Cicotte	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	11-21-2008 03:02 PM
Eddie Cicotte cards	Archive	Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T	5	05-18-2005 01:53 AM