STLtoday.com

Bob39 wrote: ↑14 May 2025 07:37 am Regarding Cicotte, his baseball reference page is interesting. 59 career WAR and 209 wins. Most of his stats seem just short of the HoF, but Hall of Fame Monitor has him at 111 where the average Hall of Famer is at 100. If you look at his similarity scores, the most similar guys (Stanley Coveleski, Chief Bender, Jack Chesboro) are all in the Hall of Fame. Dick Allen, Three Finger Brown, Rube Wadell, Willie Stargell, and George Sisler are among the Hall of Famers with a lower career WAR than Cicotte.

Cicotte had a couple of guady years in his career, but the main problem with considering his enshrinement is all of the players not enshrined who were his equal if not better... ...and they didn't try to lose a World Series. Players like Vida Blue, Carl Mays, Orel Hersheiser, Kevin Brown, Bob Welch, Billy Pierce, Adam Wainwright and a host of others in that low 200 win category with a decent ERA and winning percentage.

About the only thing Cicotte has going for him is he is said to the first major pitcher to successfully master the knuckleball and make a nice career of it. https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/Eddie-Cicotte/

That's why his best years were from the age of 33-36 when it ended with his bannishment. It's reasonable to expect that despite the jump in his ERA in 1920, his last season when the dead ball era ended, his mastery of the knuckleball would have kept him in the game with more good seasons. Knuckleballers can pitch a long time.

If his career had ended because he had to serve in a war or it was truncated by miltary service or he died tragically, he might already be in the HOF as a pioneering knuckleballer. But his career ended because he intentionally tried to lose the most important games he pitched. Fans of those players on the outside looking in would not find his enshrinment quite fair.

My answer was no to the HOF 50-years ago and its no now.

The rules are there for a reason.

11WSChamps wrote: ↑14 May 2025 10:22 am My answer was no to the HOF 50-years ago and its no now.

The rules are there for a reason.

If pete rose did indeed only bet for his team to win. I dont understand how thats morally worse than people that cheated at the game.

Letting in cheaters opened the door for this. Also, i find it silly grandstanding. They dont get to live this moment. They are dead. Its silly to pretend they didnt exist. People going should be able to recognize and see the games best. Just put on their plaque at the hall the controversy they are embroiled in.

12xu wrote: ↑14 May 2025 07:22 am

The Nard wrote: ↑14 May 2025 06:40 am

Monsieur De Treville wrote: ↑13 May 2025 21:38 pm

Absolut wrote: ↑13 May 2025 15:05 pm Ok with shoeless Joe. Not the pedo

Is Cicotte eligible as well? I think he would have some support....any others?

Ed Cicotte threw 2games while he was pitching. His first pitch was a signal to the gamblers that the fix was on

Joe Jackson only “knew” about the fix, but played his (bleep) off during that series. Check the stats.

None of that matters now. The ban is lifted, and all eight Black Sox players who were ineligible could be voted into the HOF. Cicotte won 209 games with a 2.38 ERA in his 14 seasons. Other than Shoeless Joe, he is the only one with the stats to be considered.

St. Louis connection to the Black Sox scandal: Joe Gedeon, second baseman for the St. Louis Browns. A friend of "Swede" Risberg, Gedeon learned about the fix from Risberg and placed bets on Cincinnati. He informed Comiskey of the fix after the Series to gain a reward. Instead, Landis banned him for life along with the eight White Sox

Published just before the '19 series:
Philadelphia Bulletin - October 2, 1919

Still, it really doesn't matter,
After all, who wins the flag.
Good clean sport is what we're after,
And we aim to make our brag
To each near or distant nation
Whereon shines the sporting sun
That of all our games gymnastic
Base ball is the cleanest one!

It could matter to the committee that ultimately makes the decisions. Cicotte was more of a mastermind… if they actually study the scandal, they have the opportunity to make some distinctions. Note that there’s a variety of players with eligibility and statistics that exceed HoF standards, not currently enshrined.

Monsieur De Treville wrote: ↑13 May 2025 21:40 pm

acco40 wrote: ↑13 May 2025 20:48 pm

redbird1.2.3.4 wrote: ↑13 May 2025 17:42 pm I mean, it is the national baseball hall of fame, isn't it? Not the Hall of the morally superior. I think Pete Rose was an abhorrent human being, but also a hall of fame player, as most would agree by statistics alone.

Why do you feel Rose was abhorrent? Certainly not because of betting, I hope.

I don't know....lying for years about the betting? Tax evasion? Underage girls?

Great player, fun to watch between the lines...but...pretty despicable guy off the field. He bet on baseball because he thought he was bigger than the game or the rules. He was wrong.

Are you and redbird 1.2.3.4 one in the same?

acco40 wrote: ↑16 May 2025 14:27 pm

Monsieur De Treville wrote: ↑13 May 2025 21:40 pm

acco40 wrote: ↑13 May 2025 20:48 pm

redbird1.2.3.4 wrote: ↑13 May 2025 17:42 pm I mean, it is the national baseball hall of fame, isn't it? Not the Hall of the morally superior. I think Pete Rose was an abhorrent human being, but also a hall of fame player, as most would agree by statistics alone.

Why do you feel Rose was abhorrent? Certainly not because of betting, I hope.

I don't know....lying for years about the betting? Tax evasion? Underage girls?

Great player, fun to watch between the lines...but...pretty despicable guy off the field. He bet on baseball because he thought he was bigger than the game or the rules. He was wrong.

Are you and redbird 1.2.3.4 one in the same?

Definitely not. But if he feels the way I go it's simply common sense as well as the truth.