Bobby Mathews

[Cowtipper]

Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Sure, his winning percentage wasn't great, but he did manage to win 297 games over a 15 year career. Eight of the 10 most similar players to him are in the HOF, according to Baseball-Reference. What's your take?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I really don't know what to say; baseball was a different game back then.

I will say this: If he had won 300 games, he'd have been in the HOF long ago.

[AG2004]

Should he be in the Hall of Fame? Sure, his winning percentage wasn't great, but he did manage to win 297 games over a 15 year career. Eight of the 10 most similar players to him are in the HOF, according to Baseball-Reference. What's your take?

No.

First off, we have to remember that most teams in the 1870s would depend on one pitcher for the bulk of their games. Just being the main pitcher for a team would guarantee you gobs of black ink. Mathews had a winning percentage of .353 in 1871, .382 in 1876, and .200 in 1877. They all place him in the top ten in that category. His ERA+ of 88 in 1871, 75 in 1876, and 65 in 1877 are also top ten marks.

There were thirteen teams in the NA in 1875, but only seven of them made it all the way through the season. The New York Mutuals had the seventh best winning percentage at .441; St. Louis was eighth at .211, and folded after nineteen games. The Mutuals and Chicago were tied for sixth in wins, with 30; New Haven was eighth with 7. Mathews was fifth in wins with 29 - but 29 wasn't that impressive when teams relied on one main pitcher, with someone else to pick up the slack now and then.

Let's look at 1873 for details on how teams handled their top pitchers.

Boston - 60 games. Al Spalding pitched in all 60 games, and started 55.
Philadelphia White Stockings - 53 games. George Zettlein started 51.
Baltimore Canaries - 57 games. Candy Cummings had 42 starts, and 42 complete games.
New York - 53 games. Bobby Mathews started 52 of them.
Philadelphia Athletics - 52 games. Dick McBride had 46 starts.
Brooklyn - 55 games. Jim Britt started 54.
Washington - 39 games. Bill Sterns had 32 complete games in 32 starts.
Elizabeth - 23 games. Hugh Campbell had 19 starts, 18 complete games.
Baltimore Marylands - 6 games, and went 0-6.

From 1871 to 1876, Mathews was his team's main pitcher.

From 1877 to 1881, Mathews was essentially a fringe pitcher, jumping from team to team, and not being the top pitcher for any NL team during that time.

Mathews got another chance in 1882, when the number of leagues doubled, and teams started to rely on two main pitchers. He was average with the NL's Boston team that year - there were 14 pitchers who started at least 20 games that year, and he was ninth in ERA+ (which adjusts a pitcher's ERA for park effects).

He did a bit better in the AA, but he was sixth among AA pitchers in win shares in 1883, ninth in 1884, and seventh in 1885 - which would put him just about average among the AA's starting pitchers. Mathews may have picked up 30 wins each in 1883, 1884, and 1885, but his highest ranking in wins among AA pitchers was fourth in 1883. There were eight major league pitchers with 30 or more wins in 1883, and four with 40+ wins. In 1885, there were nine pitchers with 30+ wins. Three pitchers had 40+ wins, and a fourth had 39. Finishing with 30 wins just wasn't too impressive during the early 1880s.

Mathews' win totals and gray ink look impressive to the modern fan. However, as was noted earlier, baseball was much different back then. When we look at the context in which Mathews pitched, he just wasn't that impressive.

[Imapotato]

No

Wins actually meant something back then...and the Pitcher was responsible for teams success moreso then now

[KCGHOST]

His realproblem is that all of his real success was in the National Association. Once he was in the National League he was basically a league average guy.

The NA is not an accepted league for major league purposes (stats, records, etc.) It was the best league at the time, but its quality of play was very weak. usually to get a guy in who needs his NA stats it really helps if you can round of some serious reference to him being a pioneer.

[Chickazoola]

I am kind of torn on Bobby Mathews. Firstly because the arbitrary nature of counting stats leaves him excluded from one of the two sure-fire HOF credentials: 300 wins, and 3000 hits.

I agree that if he had 300 wins he would be in, so why not 297.

It's also difficult to evaluate his NA numbers. Basically if was a ramshackle league with inconsistent talent distribution, and the game was so much different than it would be even 5 years later.

The only thing besides the wins that would bolster his case is the strong anecdotal evidence that he may have invented both the curve and the spitball. He appears regularly in most research about the invention of these pitches, and I think the main reason he hasn't gotten his due is that he didn't live long enough to really tell his story.

Baseball's ascension to National Pastime didn't really culminate until the World Series came about, and Mathews was already dead by then. Candy Cummings lived until 1924 and had his story lauded from the turn of the century onward.

So I think I could get behind Mathews as a pioneer induction, but have mixed feelings about his playing career.