Rube Marquard

[EvanAparra]

Do you believe he should be in the HOF?

[Honus Wagner]

i'll say no,
3 great years 1911-1913
4 good years
5 losing seasons
5 WS played - no series wins

several pitchers i like more...i'd even put him below tommy john

[EvanAparra]

I feel bad for him, how many people lose 5 WS.... :(

[538280]

Him and Jesse Haines compete for the title of worst pitcher in the HOF. Doesn't belong and isn't even particularly close.

[Honus Wagner]

i know jesse haines is a frankie frisch pick

don't go near my chief bender!!!

why does Ted Lyons get so much love in BBF?

[EvanAparra]

Lyons played in a much higher offensive era.

[Fuzzy Bear]

i know jesse haines is a frankie frisch pick


Marquard is, too.

The Frisch cabal seemed to pick a lousy pick at each position

1B---Bottomley (Cards), Kelly (Giants)
OF---Hafey (Cards), Youngs (Giants)
P----Haines (Cards), Marquard (Giants)

Lindstrom was a 3B who spent much of his career in the OF for the Giants in a short career. Frisch and cronies could have kept up the "tradition" if they could have rammed Pepper Martin through to be Linstrom's "twin".

[Honus Wagner]

what happened to freddie fitzsimmons and rip sewell?
their near 60% w/l look good

btw, bottomley is a top 100 hitter, so he's far from a "lousy" pick

[STLCards2]

I agree that Marquard is right there with Haines as being the worst P in the HOF.

Lyons had a great ERA+/IP ration and recieved very poor run support most of his career...hence the low W%. (A slightly better version of Eppa Rixey.)

Hafey, Haines, Youngs, Marquard, and Kelly were all horrible picks. I would agree that even though Bottomly isn't a HFer, he wasn't as lousy as the other picks.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Terry Pendelton lose 4 WS? I don't think it was 5, however.

[bigtrain]

I read Marquard's biography. Got to say he is not a hall of famer in my book. One thing I found interesting if I remember right is he got busted for world series ticket scalping and was very worried that he would receive a punishment that would adversly affect his career.

[candy curveball cummings]

I agree that Marquard is right there with Haines as being the worst P in the HOF.

Lyons had a great ERA+/IP ration and recieved very poor run support most of his career...hence the low W%. (A slightly better version of Eppa Rixey.)

Hafey, Haines, Youngs, Marquard, and Kelly were all horrible picks. I would agree that even though Bottomly isn't a HFer, he wasn't as lousy as the other picks.

If I am not mistaken, didn't Terry Pendelton lose 4 WS? I don't think it was 5, however.

Actually, Pendleton was on 5 world series-losing teams.

Now, for Rube Marquard. Absolutely a bad pick. There are a lot a guys outside of the hall who were better than Marquard. I agree with everyone here. He and Jesse Haines are the worst pitchers in the Hall.

[KCGHOST]

Not remotely a qualified HoFer. He was elected in 1971 by the VC when they also elected Beckley, Hooper, Bancroft, Hafey, and Joe Kelley. Not a stellar group. The VC somewhat redeemed itself by inducting Satchel Paige,

[jalbright]

Not remotely a qualified HoFer. He was elected in 1971 by the VC when they also elected Beckley, Hooper, Bancroft, Hafey, and Joe Kelley. Not a stellar group. The VC somewhat redeemed itself by inducting Satchel Paige,

They can't even claim Paige, because that was done by the Negro Leagues Committee, which was an entirely separate group of people. They did get a deserving executive (assuming you're willing to elect executives) in George Weiss. By comparison, that same year, the BBWAA turned down (in no particular order) Yogi Berra (!), Early Wynn, Ralph Kiner, Phil Rizzuto, Enos Slaughter, Johnny Mize, Pee Wee Reese, Red Schoendienst, Hal Newhouser, Bob Lemon and George Kell, all of whom are now in the Hall as well. You could argue if Kell, Rizzuto and Schoendienst are better than the best of the 1971 VC group (Beckley or Bancroft, IMO), but I don't think a reasonable argument can be made for any of the 1971 VC electees over any of the others turned down by the BBWAA that same year. Man, what was Frankie Frisch and company smoking/drinking/otherwise ingesting? The evidence suggests hallucinogenics and/or an immense amount of cow manure.

Jim Albright

[Cowtipper]

You knows it's bad when not a single one of his most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame.

Marquard was a really good pitcher, but I do not believe he is Hall of Fame worthy.

[Brian McKenna]

Wasn't he nearly banned?

[Paul Wendt]

You knows it's bad when not a single one of his most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame.

Marquard was a really good pitcher, but I do not believe he is Hall of Fame worthy.

His peak and his best season off-peak coincided with four pennants in New York and Brooklyn. The Giants romped but the Dodgers needed every "good year" they got. Maybe it was a "storied" win, or one unusually recognized outside Brooklyn, a boon to later memories of both Marquard and Wilbert Robinson, a winner in Brooklyn only three years after the split with McGraw in New York. For fifteen years New York had been a big winner and Brooklyn a big loser.

All that said, it is only the sort of thing that sustains memories of Johnny Podres, it doesn't put him in the Hall of Fame or even in the driveway.

[jaxxr]

"The Frisch cabal seemed to pick a lousy pick at each position

1B---Bottomley (Cards), Kelly (Giants)
OF---Hafey (Cards), Youngs (Giants)
P----Haines (Cards), Marquard (Giants)"

Joe Kelly, 1971 HOF inductee, NEVER played for the Giants.

In 1971, Win Shares, Replacement values, even ERA + or Adjusted ERA +, were not used much in HOF evaluation.
In 1971, some 37 years ago, there were much less pitchers to compare one with.

In 1971, Marquard's 19 game winning streak, ( 20 under current rules ) was very highly regarded, as it probably still should be to some extent today.

Rube is certainly not the most awesome hurler in the Hall, his great popularity, five WS stints with two different aquads, and maybe a great 21 inning complete game win back in 1914, combined with a fine overall record, should allow us to give the voters a little slack in picking Rube, nearly 40 years ago.

[jalbright]

jaxxr:

The Kelly in question is George, not Joe, and George did play for the Giants.

Marquard, like anybody who can even be mentioned in a HOF discussion without hoots of derision, was a good player--but he was clearly not a great one, which is what the Hall should be about. So the pick of Marquard deserves no slack, nor shall it get any from this quarter.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I wonder if Marquard, friendship with Frisch and all, would have been enshrined into the HOF if he had not won 200 games.

A number of his comps are superior pitchers. Wilbur Cooper has a much better case than either Haines or Marquard. He's not an overwhelming candidate, but he can say he's better than several guys in the HOF.

A lot of the other guys didn't win 200. They didn't get any HOF love. I wonder if Marquard would have been enshrined if he had won 197 games.

[henrich]

I have haines and griffith as the worst in the Hall (for pitchers). Marquard clearly isn't top tier, but neither is he as bad as I'm reading. I thought he was in the 5th rung from the bottom as to maybe the last rung. Perhaps I'm too lenient.

[jalbright]

Marquard doesn't do too well in my book. There are legitimate issues in using MVP shares, Cy Young shares, and All-Star appearances with respect to his case, so I won't. I like to see a pitcher with an ERA+ of 120 or better; or, failing that, enough IP over 3500 to compensate. Marquard had an ERA+ of 103 and just over 3300 IP, which means he clearly fails there. I'd like to see over 300 career win shares, and he only managed 208. I look at black ink, gray ink and HOF standards, and since there are about 70 MLB pitchers in the Hall, I want a candidate to be in that range. He's 202nd in black ink, 95th in gray ink, and 131st in HOF standards. Not what I'm looking for. The last test is to compare him to his peers.

We'll go with all pitchers who are in the BBF HOF or HOF and who pitched at least 2000 innings from 1903-1928 (5 years on either side of Marquard's career):


Pitcher.... career best 3 5consec bl ink gr ink HOF stds
W Johnson 564 143 217 150 420 82
Cy Young.. 635 127 200 100 472 82
Alexander 477 127 180 126 339 77
Mathewson 426 115 161 92 352 84
Plank....... 360 89 133 15 291 71
M Brown... 296 105 163 35 195 56
Walsh..... 265 124 177 67 172 52
Willis....... 293 101 138 25 204 43
Waddell.... 240 100 145 46 158 47
Bender..... 231 70 100 17 158 51
Joss........ 191 88 131 19 143 47
Marquard... 208 78 93 11 150 31
Rixey...... 315 76 118 10 175 35
Cooper.... 266 85 133 17 173 33
Faber...... 292 93 118 22 161 37
Grimes..... 286 91 122 38 213 38
Coveleski.. 245 90 142 22 193 38
Mays...... 256 92 140 23 172 41
Hoyt....... 262 69 100 7 182 32
Haines..... 207 67 80 8 91 27


I count five guys who I wouldn't put in the Hall, and I think most people would say there are several they wouldn't put in from this group. Excluding Haines, who Marquard beats across the board, there are three guys Marquard can manage to beat twice each in these six categories: Joss (career WS and gray ink, by small margins in each case, and I think the other categories overcome those losses for Joss); Rixey and Hoyt in top 3 seasons in win shares and black ink. In both cases, the difference in black ink is small, and again overall he can't hang with either of those two. He does get Bender in best 3 seasons, but is consistently beaten elsewhere by the Chief. In my book, Marquard is the second worst of this group, once again demonstrating why he doesn't belong in the Hall. He's a clear mistake as far as I'm concerned, though Haines is even more so.

[Mike90]

You knows it's bad when not a single one of his most similar pitchers are in the Hall of Fame.

Marquard was a really good pitcher, but I do not believe he is Hall of Fame worthy.

Compared to his ten most similar pitchers, Marquard has the worst ERA+ and the same WL% as the average (.532). It really is amazing that he was elected; at least Haines has a HOF-worthy win-loss record (although wins are overrated).

[henrich]

Marquard doesn't do too well in my book. There are legitimate issues in using MVP shares, Cy Young shares, and All-Star appearances with respect to his case, so I won't. I like to see a pitcher with an ERA+ of 120 or better; or, failing that, enough IP over 3500 to compensate. Marquard had an ERA+ of 103 and just over 3300 IP, which means he clearly fails there. I'd like to see over 300 career win shares, and he only managed 208. I look at black ink, gray ink and HOF standards, and since there are about 70 MLB pitchers in the Hall, I want a candidate to be in that range. He's 202nd in black ink, 95th in gray ink, and 131st in HOF standards. Not what I'm looking for. The last test is to compare him to his peers.

We'll go with all pitchers who are in the BBF HOF or HOF and who pitched at least 2000 innings from 1903-1928 (5 years on either side of Marquard's career):


Pitcher.... career best 3 5consec bl ink gr ink HOF stds
W Johnson 564 143 217 150 420 82
Cy Young.. 635 127 200 100 472 82
Alexander 477 127 180 126 339 77
Mathewson 426 115 161 92 352 84
Plank....... 360 89 133 15 291 71
M Brown... 296 105 163 35 195 56
Walsh..... 265 124 177 67 172 52
Willis....... 293 101 138 25 204 43
Waddell.... 240 100 145 46 158 47
Bender..... 231 70 100 17 158 51
Joss........ 191 88 131 19 143 47
Marquard... 208 78 93 11 150 31
Rixey...... 315 76 118 10 175 35
Cooper.... 266 85 133 17 173 33
Faber...... 292 93 118 22 161 37
Grimes..... 286 91 122 38 213 38
Coveleski.. 245 90 142 22 193 38
Mays...... 256 92 140 23 172 41
Hoyt....... 262 69 100 7 182 32
Haines..... 207 67 80 8 91 27


I count five guys who I wouldn't put in the Hall, and I think most people would say there are several they wouldn't put in from this group. Excluding Haines, who Marquard beats across the board, there are three guys Marquard can manage to beat twice each in these six categories: Joss (career WS and gray ink, by small margins in each case, and I think the other categories overcome those losses for Joss); Rixey and Hoyt in top 3 seasons in win shares and black ink. In both cases, the difference in black ink is small, and again overall he can't hang with either of those two. He does get Bender in best 3 seasons, but is consistently beaten elsewhere by the Chief. In my book, Marquard is the second worst of this group, once again demonstrating why he doesn't belong in the Hall. He's a clear mistake as far as I'm concerned, though Haines is even more so.

Excellent post he scores below my 10,000 point mark coming in at 9300, so I'm not advocating he's a great choice either, but I do have him near McGinnity or McCormick. I think your evidence for him being subpar is hard to dispute.