Rick Reuschel

[Cowtipper]

From 1972 to 1991, Rick Reuschel posted a 214-191 record with a 3.37 ERA. A three time All-Star, he was a two time Gold Glove winner, and two Hall of Famers are statistically similar to him: Jim Bunning and Catfish Hunter.

His numbers might not look too exciting, but one has to remember that he pitched for a lot of bad teams in his career. For example, from 1972 to 1981, during his first tenure with the Cubs, Reuschel had a record of 129-121 while the team as a whole only went 720-833. So, while the team as a whole had a winning percentage of only .463, he had a winning percentage of .516. Also in that time, he led the team in wins six times and ERA four times (when I say he led the team in ERA, I mean among all pitchers with at least 20 starts, except for 1981, when I refer to all pitchers with at least 10 starts).

Then with the 1985 Pirates - a team that went 57-104, he was the only pitcher on the team with at least 10 wins and the only starter with a winning record, going 14-8 with a 2.27 ERA (which also led the team, among all pitchers with at least two games logged).

He was again his team's (the Giants) best starter in 1988 and 1989 (although I must give credit where credit's due - Scott Garrelts may have been better than him in 1989), going 19-11 in 1988 and 17-8 in 1989.

Overall, the teams he played for had a combined record of 1572-1706, and even with that he managed to post a record of 214-191. That's a .528 career winning percentage compared to a team winning percentage of .480. Had he played on better teams throughout his career, his record surely would have been better than it turned into.

With all that said...should Rick Reuschel be in the Hall of Fame?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Reuschel's selection would open the door for literally 15-20 pitchers who have a case if Reuschel has a case.

If Reuschel, why not . . .

Orel Hershiser
Luis Tiant
Jack Morris
Dennis Martinez
Frank Tanana
Billy Pierce
Dave McNally
Mike Cuellar
Mickey Lolich
Vida Blue
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Carl Mays
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Bert Blyleven
Tommy Bridges

How could we object to ANY of these guys if Reuschel gets into the HOF?

[Brooklyn]

Reuschel's selection would open the door for literally 15-20 pitchers who have a case if Reuschel has a case.

If Reuschel, why not . . .

Orel Hershiser
Luis Tiant
Jack Morris
Dennis Martinez
Frank Tanana
Billy Pierce
Dave McNally
Mike Cuellar
Mickey Lolich
Vida Blue
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Carl Mays
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Bert Blyleven
Tommy Bridges

How could we object to ANY of these guys if Reuschel gets into the HOF?

Agreed, you would have to be a supporter of an extremely large Hall to even consider Reuschel. I'd put the 16 guys you listed easily above Reuschel. There are probably 25-50 more that are in Reuschel's category. If Reuschel ever got in, you'd have 50 or so more guys that could say "if Reuschel, why not so and so"

[digglahhh]

Hey, Cowtipper does come through when it comes to nominating novel candidates!

[Cowtipper]

What I've been doing is going down the "top 10 most similar" lists of each of the Hall of Famers, and the guys that are similar that are not in the Hall of Fame I've given a thread to. One would think that because they are similar to a Hall of Famer, they might have a case. Apparently this is not always so.

When a bunch of a Hall of Famers most similar players are not really worth starting a thread for (see Roger Bresnahan, Dave Bancroft, etc) I start a poll asking about all of them at once. I think I'll do that with the Hall of Famer I'm currently working on, actually.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If Reuschel had won one more game in 1988, he'd be generating more discussion.

If Reuschel didn't pitch a lick better, but had enough luck to turn 16 losses into wins, he'd be 230-175 for his career. If he did this AND added another 20 game season, he'd be a candidate in the manner of Jim Bunning and Luis Tiant. One's in and one's out, but Reuschel would then be in the mix.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

As a Giants' fan I saw Reuschel up close in 1989-90. He was fun to watch with that slow deliberate delivery and his nasty sinker. And he could swing the bat a little, too. But in the end he's not a HoF, though.

[The Commissioner]

Reuschel was a good pitcher for a long time, but despite what the "similarity scores" may say, he was never in the same category of pitchers as Hunter or Bunning.

[digglahhh]

What I've been doing is going down the "top 10 most similar" lists of each of the Hall of Famers, and the guys that are similar that are not in the Hall of Fame I've given a thread to. One would think that because they are similar to a Hall of Famer, they might have a case. Apparently this is not always so.

When a bunch of a Hall of Famers most similar players are not really worth starting a thread for (see Roger Bresnahan, Dave Bancroft, etc) I start a poll asking about all of them at once. I think I'll do that with the Hall of Famer I'm currently working on, actually.

Hey, keep it going.

Several of the guys you have suggest are not, in my estimation, viable Hall Candidates, but it's better than having another Jim Rice discussion!!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Hey, keep it going.

Several of the guys you have suggest are not, in my estimation, viable Hall Candidates, but it's better than having another Jim Rice discussion!!

I fully agree. There's no harm in discussion of different players who had good or better careers. It's not like cowtipper is actually endorsing any of the players he's introducing, but merely presenting whatever case can be made.

It beats the endless Rice/Santo/Blyleven/Joe Jackson/Jimmy Wynn threads we've had or had other threads morph into.

[Paul Wendt]

Agreed, you would have to be a supporter of an extremely large Hall to even consider Reuschel. I'd put the 16 guys you listed easily above Reuschel. There are probably 25-50 more that are in Reuschel's category. If Reuschel ever got in, you'd have 50 or so more guys that could say "if Reuschel, why not so and so"

and fuzzy bear:
> How could we object to ANY of these guys if Reuschel gets into the HOF?

(I count 17.)

Do you want to object to all?

Determined naysayers would find a way even if Reuschel were in the Hall.

Shocker, Shawkey, Mays, and Bridges?
Use a timeline argument. Good pitchers weren't very good then. ;)

Contemporaries?
Reuschel was better than many of those pitchers and a lot better than some. Dave McNally for one, you can see in a glance at the record, but Mike Cuellar is another.
McNally and Cuellar were stalwarts for my favorite team. Only because Jim Palmer is one of the all-time greats while they are not even in the Hall of Fame conversations, it is fashionable to observe that Jim Palmer was one of the luckiest pitchers ever, lucky inl his teammates. It's true that he was fortunate there. He even went to the minors with arm trouble in '67-68 when the Orioles suffered other problems that would have damaged his W-L. But the record shows that McNally and Cuellar were a lot luckier in the W-L department. Relative to his 20-game compadres, for Palmer those teammates didn't get very many of those key hits at key times that make a gaudy W-L. Dave McNally was merely a very good pitcher when he put up 65-21 in three seasons. He played for one of baseball's greatest teams and it came through for him many, many, many times.

There is an argument that Dave McNally is the best Hall of Fame candidate on that list despite being the worst pitcher. The argument must be that lending his name to the Messersmith case outweighs the advantages in favor of all the others on the field.

[Edit: add paragraph
McNally was a great pitcher in 1968. Check out that daily record.
Dave McNally 1968 at Retrosheet (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1968/Kmcnad1020071968.htm)
But great only in 1968. He cashed in all his credits next year. The 15-0 W-L thru July (and 17-game winning streak beginning '68) really made his reputation as one of baseball's best. He got to 15-0 with eleven! no-decisions including eight! games where he did not complete five innings.
Dave McNally 1969 at Retrosheet (http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/1969/Kmcnad1020081969.htm)
]

[dgarza]

If Reuschel, why not . . .

Orel Hershiser
Luis Tiant
Jack Morris
Dennis Martinez
Frank Tanana
Billy Pierce
Dave McNally
Mike Cuellar
Mickey Lolich
Vida Blue
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Carl Mays
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Bert Blyleven
Tommy Bridges

How could we object to ANY of these guys if Reuschel gets into the HOF?

Most of these guy are merkedly better than Ruschel. I see only Tanana as worse.
You've touched on the obvious ones. But there's still the Milt Pappass, Jerry Koosmans, and Steve Rogerss of the game who would rank right along side Reuschel.

[Freakshow]

Reuschel is better than you think. Check out this analysis:

Reuschel discussion at the Hall of Merit (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/rick_reuschel)

[KCGHOST]

Reuschel had a fine career but I can't get excited about his candidacy. Certainly there are worse pitchers in the HoF. Who can forget the bomb Bo Jackson hit off him in the ASG?

[dgarza]

Certainly there are worse pitchers in the HoF. I'd only count Jessie Haines as a worse selection.

Rube Marquard, Herb Pennock, and Jack Chesbro all have better cases than Reuschel.

[Bench 5]

Rick Rueschel was a very good athlete despite his size and build. The Cubs used to use him as a pinch runner late in games. He was a good fielder and good hitter for a pitcher.

I met him twice when Ii was a kid. I saw him at a local carnival when I was 12 years old. He looked enormous at the time. He was 6'3-4" and about 275.

His brother Paul also pitched for the Cubs but he wasn't nearly as good as Rick.

Rick was a very good pitcher and had a nice career but I don't think he is quite HOF material.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Milt Pappass, Jerry Koosmans, and Steve Rogerss of the game who would rank right along side Reuschel.


FWIW, I would rank Reuschel ahead of Rogers; about even with Koosman.

Reuschel had grit; he came back from injury problems from 1982 to 1984 to give his career a second wind; no one would have predicted his 1988-89 seasons in 1983. Had he not made the comeback to that level of pitching again, we wouldn't even be having this thread.

[honus14]

Agreed, you would have to be a supporter of an extremely large Hall to even consider Reuschel.

Hey, no fat jokes! :)

I was a big fan of Ricky Reuschel. He was the guy who always seemed to be pitching when I went to the game, or maybe that's my memory playing tricks on me now, but it seems like I always saw him pitch. Pitched with no visible effort at all. A good baserunner and hitter, he used to pinch-hit and pinch-run sometimes. His family is from my area; I met his niece a few times. Pretty decent (soft)ball player and umpire herself.

But a hall-of-famer? Even I don't think so.

And by the way, if any of you are saying "ROO-shull" to yourselves as you read this, you're wrong; it's RUSH-ell.


ETA: Oops, sorry, missed Bench5's reference to his pinch-hitting and -running.

[baseball junkie]

Rich Reuschel, the David Wells of the 70s and 80s -- no way!

[Eastvanmungo]

Reuschel's selection would open the door for literally 15-20 pitchers who have a case if Reuschel has a case.

If Reuschel, why not . . .

Orel Hershiser
Luis Tiant
Jack Morris
Dennis Martinez
Frank Tanana
Billy Pierce
Dave McNally
Mike Cuellar
Mickey Lolich
Vida Blue
Urban Shocker
Bob Shawkey
Carl Mays
Tommy John
Jim Kaat
Bert Blyleven
Tommy Bridges

How could we object to ANY of these guys if Reuschel gets into the HOF?

No to Reuschel... but my HOF would have room for Blyleven, Mays , Morris and Kaat.


Yes, I said Morris.

[Cowtipper]

Jack Morris? Why? His ERA was nearly 4.00.

[jjpm74]

Jack Morris? Why? His ERA was nearly 4.00.

Morris was a dominant force in the 80s. His high ERA is because he was the type of pitcher who would have a 5-0 lead, give up 4 runs then clamp down. He was also a superb big game pitcher. Guys like Morris and Schilling get recognition because of what they can do when it counts rather than by counting stats.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Morris was a dominant force in the 80s. His high ERA is because he was the type of pitcher who would have a 5-0 lead, give up 4 runs then clamp down. He was also a superb big game pitcher. Guys like Morris and Schilling get recognition because of what they can do when it counts rather than by counting stats.

I support Morris as well, and for the reasons jjpm74 cites, by and large.

I don't think that W-L record is as irrelevant as some suggest here. There are pitchers that are beneficiaries of pure luck, but there are also pitchers who are able to "win ugly" because they are mentally tough. These are the guys who don't go to pieces when the bases are loaded. These are the guys who are able to regroup and keep pitching; who DON'T throw the gopher ball at the critical point in the game.

Morris was one of those guys. He was tough as nails, mentally, and THAT'S why he was a "big-game" pitcher. THAT'S why he won Game 7 of the 1991 WS (the greatest pitching duel in a WS of all time).

Welch is not a HOFer, and he's not as good as Morris was, but Welch, too, was a mentally tough pitcher who was a CONSISTENT winner. That's why I do not denigrate Welch's Cy Young Award; he may not have been as good as Clemens, but it wasn't a terrible pick. It's hardly unusual for a guy with SEVEN more wins than his competition to take the Cy Young Award. Seven wins is a LOT of wins.

[Los Bravos]

No to Reuschel... but my HOF would have room for Blyleven, Mays , Morris and Kaat.
I'd go for El Tiante and John, too.

And several of those other guys merit more than a cursory look before a final "No", in my opinion.

[hairmetalfreek]

Who can forget the bomb Bo Jackson hit off him in the ASG?

That's the first thing I think of when his name comes up.

As to the list posted earlier, I support Morris and Blyleven 100%, and somewhat lean towards "yes" for Tiant, Tommy John and possibly Vida Blue.

[DoubleX]

We've had some conversation in the statistics forum (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=92853)regarding WAR and how Rick Reuschel has the 30th highest career value under that measure. That would seemingly place him in solid HoF territory and got me thinking about Reuschel's Hall of Fame candidacy generally (note: this isn't meant to rehash the conversation on the merits of WAR).

How does Reuschel stack up? I believe he has a better case than most would probably credit him, but he's still firmly on the outside.

[Brooklyn]

I just can't see Reuschel anywhere close. Too many similar pitchers. Good pitcher for a long time, but never really a great pitcher. I wasn't part of the WAR conversation, but I can't see him anywhere near 30th.

If he ever got in, probably 30+ guys that woudl say "if Reuschel, why not xxx"

[Freakshow]

A couple comments from the 2009 Hall of Merit election.

2. Rick Reuschel
Yep, Joe is right about him. Superficially similar to Tiant--both threw 3,500 innings with a 114 ERA+--but Reuschel was hurt by his fielders while Tiant was helped by his, and while Tiant rode the wave of massive pitcher seasons around 1970, Reuschel pitched half of his career when the 300-IP season was a thing of the past. Plus he has that One Big Year (1977) I like to see.2. Rick Reuschel SP (3) - 1.05 PA, (Amos Rusie, Jim Bunning). This ranking surprised me a great deal when I first realized how good he was. It's one thing to 'discover' an Ezra Sutton (I mean as a group, not that I discovered him first or anything) who played 130 years ago. But Rick Reuschel was there, right before my very eyes. He pitched in the World Series for my favorite team when I was turning 9 years old. And I never had a clue he was this good.

My Pennants Added system, which accounts for fielding support, parks, bullpen support, etc.; shows him right behind Dazzy Vance, Ed Walsh and Amos Rusie, and ahead of Jim Bunning, Sandy Koufax and Juan Marichal.

He isn't peakless either. His top 4 years are similar to that of Ron Guidry or Mike Scott - both considered 'peak' candidates. His 1977 was every bit as valuable as Bunning's 1966. Bunning definitely has him beat in years 2-5, but Reuschel makes it up with more quality in the back end. I get them essentially equal, Reuschel was a little better inning for inning, Bunning had a higher peak, but in the end they even out.

I have Reuschel with a 115 DRA+ over 3745 tIP, Bunning was 113 over 3739 tIP. This is where I would have ranked Bunning, who sailed into the Hall of Merit, I have no issue putting Reuschel here.

Even when I take my numbers, but filter them through a Bill James-type NHBA scoring system (that heavily focuses on peak), Reuschel still comes out in a group with guys like Jim Palmer, Noodles Hahn, Eddie Rommel, Tex Hughson, Clark Griffith and Whitey Ford. Hahn, Rommel and Hughson all had very nice peaks.

Using a JAWS scoring system, he comes out in a group with Wes Ferrell, Jack Quinn, Palmer, Stan Coveleski, Red Faber and Urban Shocker.

I am saying that Reuschel was every bit as good as the Jims, Palmer and Bunning. The only difference between Palmer and Reuschel is park and defense. Reuschel's 1977 was better than any season Palmer had. Palmer, like Bunning was better than Reuschel in the 2-5 best seasons, but by less than a win a year, and over the course of their careers, Reuschel was better, 115 DRA+ to Palmer's 113 (in a similar number of innings, Palmer had 3781 tIP. He had the one great year, and was very good from 1973-81 and 1985, 1987-89. That's a record that not a lot of pitchers can match.

[nerfan]

He's about the same as Jerry Koosman in my opinion. Terribly underrated, but not QUITE Hall of Fame quality.

[KCGHOST]

Not a guy we think of much but he had a very fine career.

[538280]

I could see him as HOF worthy. I wasn't a part of the WAR discussion either so I'm not really sure what it's picking up on but he pitched for many bad teams over his career so I think he probably got well below average defensive support. He may actually be considerably better than his 114 ERA+ would indicate-and a 114 ERA+ in 3500 or so innings isn't that far outside of HOF worthy anyway. I would need to look more into his career before I support him for the HOF for sure but I definitely see him as a credible candidate and clearly better than many pitchers who are in the HOF.

[Cowtipper]

Here's a thread we have for him already:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=73293&highlight=Reuschel

[dgarza]

Similar to Jack Quinn, Rick Reuschel was a very good pitcher most of the time and he lasted a pretty long time. While he did have some good years, he also comes across as inconsistent. Through a similar number of innings, Tommy John was better.

Although a credible candidate, Reuschel is not a HOFer and is not especially close either. Given all this pluses, he's still a solid NO.

[mwiggins]

He's a very solid borderline candidate, but I'm leaning toward no. He certainly wouldn't lower the Hall's standard, as he's a better candidate than a number of current Hall of Famers.

And he's superior to any pitcher on the current HoF ballot outside of Blyleven and Cone, and Cone's really no better of a candidate than Reuschel. I'm comfortable saying both aren't Hall of Famers, but I wouldn't classify either one as a "mistake" if they got in.

[jalbright]

Threads merged

[BigRon]

May be repeating what some others have said.

Reuschel was a good to very good pitcher for most of his career. He was a good athlete- agile for his size. A good fielder and a pretty good hitter- he'd pinch-run once in a while. I saw him a lot with the Pirates in the mid-80s- he really knew what he was doing.

There is a large group of pitchers who are closely knotted together, in the 50- 150 best of all time. I definitely see Reuschel in this group- I place him closer to the 100th spot, but he might be a bit higher (or lower).

My imaginary HOF has about 75 or 80 pitchers. Reuschel isn't too far away, but he doesn't quite make it.

[Los Bravos]

I believe he has a better case than most would probably credit him, but he's still firmly on the outside.That covers it nicely.

[STLCards2]

WAR has Rueschel getting hurt to the tune of about 70 runs by his defense - or for him- 4 ERA+ points. If those defensive numbers are close, that puts him at a 118 ERA+ for 3,500 innings - well into most people's HOF threshold. Rueschel was also a big-time groundballer, meaning that his stats are hurt less by Wrigley than an average pitcher. ERA+ assumes every pitcher is affected the same. This can be pulling his ERA+ down by about 2 points. I am betting his "true talent" numbers to be a 120 ERA for 3,500 IP during what many consider to be the highest LQ in history. HOFer for me.

And WAR isn't the only one - Matt's DNRA+, WPA, and WSAB all see Rueschel as a solid HOFer.

[leecemark]

--I believe you have the adjustment backwards on Wrigley. He was given the standard park adjustment for the park, so if you believe he was not affected by it as much then that would overrate him. You should move that 2point down rather than up.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I remember being impressed by Reuschel when he first came up, and surprised that he didn't end up better than he was.

I wonder if Reuschel would have done better in the HOF balloting had he won 20 a 2nd time (he won 19 games in 1988).

[leecemark]

--I think RR might be better appreciated by people who aren't old enough to have been around when he was active. If you were a fan then it is hard to accept the idea that he was as good - or even close to as good - as Jim Palmer. The perception of them while active was definately not that they were similar talents. Palmer was an annual contender for the CYA while Rueschal was just a pretty good pitcher.
--I am willing to concede that the perception may have been driven by factors unrelated to either man's talent though. Palmer pitched for teams that contended every year, giving him a greater opportunity to pile up the wins (which he took full advantage of). Those teams were also amoung the best defensive squads of all time, driving down his ERA. Rueschel on the other hand pitched for generlaly poor teams in a hitter's park. One man then looks better than he really was, while the other not as good. That said, Palmer is an obvious Hall of Famer IMO while Rueschel is quite a reach. How you were regarded while active is not unimportant..

[CircleChange11]

From 1972 to 1991, Rick Reuschel posted a 214-191 record with a 3.37 ERA. A three time All-Star, he was a two time Gold Glove winner, and two Hall of Famers are statistically similar to him: Jim Bunning and Catfish Hunter.

His numbers might not look too exciting, but one has to remember that he pitched for a lot of bad teams in his career. For example, from 1972 to 1981, during his first tenure with the Cubs, Reuschel had a record of 129-121 while the team as a whole only went 720-833. So, while the team as a whole had a winning percentage of only .463, he had a winning percentage of .516. Also in that time, he led the team in wins six times and ERA four times (when I say he led the team in ERA, I mean among all pitchers with at least 20 starts, except for 1981, when I refer to all pitchers with at least 10 starts).

Then with the 1985 Pirates - a team that went 57-104, he was the only pitcher on the team with at least 10 wins and the only starter with a winning record, going 14-8 with a 2.27 ERA (which also led the team, among all pitchers with at least two games logged).

He was again his team's (the Giants) best starter in 1988 and 1989 (although I must give credit where credit's due - Scott Garrelts may have been better than him in 1989), going 19-11 in 1988 and 17-8 in 1989.

Overall, the teams he played for had a combined record of 1572-1706, and even with that he managed to post a record of 214-191. That's a .528 career winning percentage compared to a team winning percentage of .480. Had he played on better teams throughout his career, his record surely would have been better than it turned into.

With all that said...should Rick Reuschel be in the Hall of Fame?

No. No. No. No.

Playing 10+ years and making a couple all-star teams is not "Hall of Fame Worthy".

I am not simply referring to Reuschel, but to all of the goofy threads about Wally Joyner, Andy Van Slyke, Rick Reuschel, Mark Grace, Will Clark, etc.

I am NOT saying these guys didn;t have really good careers ... what I am saying is that they were not dominant at their positions, nor did they dominate their era. They were good, with some very good seasons ... but compared to their peers, they are not "well above" them .... not great players.

I know that names are brought up just for "discussion sake", and I take that into account. But, we're talking about the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Eh, He was pretty good".

[mwiggins]

I am not simply referring to Reuschel, but to all of the goofy threads about Wally Joyner, Andy Van Slyke, Rick Reuschel, Mark Grace, Will Clark, etc.

I am NOT saying these guys didn;t have really good careers ... what I am saying is that they were not dominant at their positions, nor did they dominate their era. They were good, with some very good seasons ... but compared to their peers, they are not "well above" them .... not great players.



How does Clark fit into that idea? He's a classic "peak" candidate who's very deserving of the Hall because he was dominant at his position and was "well above" his peers for a number of years - not because he had a really good career. He was a great player who didn't have a great career.

And "dominate their era" seems a little strong. If that's what was needed to be a quality candidate, the last player elected to the Hall would have been Schmidt in 1995. Heck, even Hank Aaron would on the outside looking in, since he was always 2nd rate to Mays and Mantle in his era.

[64Cards]

Good pitcher, solid #2 starter. But if he's your #1, your stopper, you're not going to get into post-season unless you have a lineup like the Big Red Machine of the 70's.

[jjpm74]

--I think RR might be better appreciated by people who aren't old enough to have been around when he was active. If you were a fan then it is hard to accept the idea that he was as good - or even close to as good - as Jim Palmer. The perception of them while active was definately not that they were similar talents. Palmer was an annual contender for the CYA while Rueschal was just a pretty good pitcher.
--I am willing to concede that the perception may have been driven by factors unrelated to either man's talent though. Palmer pitched for teams that contended every year, giving him a greater opportunity to pile up the wins (which he took full advantage of). Those teams were also amoung the best defensive squads of all time, driving down his ERA. Rueschel on the other hand pitched for generlaly poor teams in a hitter's park. One man then looks better than he really was, while the other not as good. That said, Palmer is an obvious Hall of Famer IMO while Rueschel is quite a reach. How you were regarded while active is not unimportant..

Agreed.

As informative as the HOM discussions are, I sometimes wonder if they ever actually watch any games or if they just run advanced statistical breakdowns all day long. Reuschel was just a good pitcher. He was never great and was never considered great. The comparisons to Palmer and Bunning are quite a stretch.

[STLCards2]

--I believe you have the adjustment backwards on Wrigley. He was given the standard park adjustment for the park, so if you believe he was not affected by it as much then that would overrate him. You should move that 2point down rather than up.

You are right - so that woukld leave him at about a 116 ERA+ for 3,500 IP - still a HOFer in my book.

[STLCards2]

Good pitcher, solid #2 starter. But if he's your #1, your stopper, you're not going to get into post-season unless you have a lineup like the Big Red Machine of the 70's.

Maybe he would have if he had Palmer's defense or the Reds offense behind him all the time. How would we know? He is the anti-Ford - the wrong field, with the wrong defense, with the wrong offense support.

[Cougar]

I wonder if Reuschel would have done better in the HOF balloting had he won 20 a 2nd time (he won 19 games in 1988).

Good point...it wouldn't have gotten him in, but it would have raised his profile substantially.

[538280]

Looking at it a little more I think I definitely see Reuschel as a lower tier but a solid HOFer, he'd make my HOF. Even his base credentials as a 3500 inning guy with a 114 ERA+ is not far from HOF territory. There are many guys with much worse credentials in and many guys with very similar credentials in. Waite Hoyt has a few more innings and a 111 ERA+, Jim Bunning a few more and a 114 ERA+, Herb Pennock about the same IP and a 106 ERA+, Catfish Hunter less IP and a 104 ERA+. Those guys aren't the best HOFers but they're usually not considered bottom of the barrel guys and Reuschel is right with them, arguably the best of the group.

But those are just his base credentials and I think as the metrics suggest he's probably quite a bit better than his base credentials because he played in front of bad defenses for just about his whole career, in other words he's clearly better than his ERA+, probably significantly better, and even just based on ERA+ he's not a bad candidate at all. How he was regarded isn't all that important to me, I didn't see the man pitch so I can't say for sure I would seriously doubt he was not regarded all that highly because of some great observation you had to be there to see. He was underrated because of statistics plain and simple, he didn't have the raw wins or the raw ERA to be considered among the best.

[Freakshow]

Translated Pitching Statistics from Baseball Prospectus
IP W L ERA 20-win
Palmer 3722 230 177 3.97 2
Bunning 3717 230 180 3.99 3
Reuschel 3659 232 182 3.95 1

[PVNICK]

I think Reuschel is hurt as much as anything else by the break in his career, so to speak, from 81-85. He was hurt or whatever and went to that career killing place at the time known as the Yankees before sticking with the Pirates in 1985 and having some years that were better than his W-L record. Finally he went to the Giants of Clark and Mitchell and had some end of career big win seasons, where he finally started getting the credit at age 40 that was his due from his days with the Cubs 10-15 years earlier.

[Cougar]

I think Reuschel is hurt as much as anything else by the break in his career, so to speak, from 81-85. He was hurt or whatever and went to that career killing place at the time known as the Yankees before sticking with the Pirates in 1985 and having some years that were better than his W-L record. Finally he went to the Giants of Clark and Mitchell and had some end of career big win seasons, where he finally started getting the credit at age 40 that was his due from his days with the Cubs 10-15 years earlier.

The Yankees (where he spent all of half a season in 1981 and pitched damn well) weren't the problem...the problem was that his arm blew up (I suppose in spring training '82; not sure), and wasn't right again until 1985. He missed all of 1982, most of 1983, and he was ineffective in 1984.

You couldn't really call these classically prime seasons, as they were his age 33, 34, and 35 seasons, but given how strongly he finally came back, if he didn't have the injury, he'd have made a good run at 250 wins.

On the other hand, if he'd gotten hurt a generation earlier, they wouldn't have had the medical technology to reconstruct his arm, and he'd have retired after a 10 year career with a record of 133-125 and a 3.40 ERA.

[Freakshow]

The Yankees (where he spent all of half a season in 1981 and pitched damn well) weren't the problem...the problem was that his arm blew up (I suppose in spring training '82; not sure), and wasn't right again until 1985. He missed all of 1982, most of 1983, and he was ineffective in 1984.

You couldn't really call these classically prime seasons, as they were his age 33, 34, and 35 seasons, but given how strongly he finally came back, if he didn't have the injury, he'd have made a good run at 250 wins.

On the other hand, if he'd gotten hurt a generation earlier, they wouldn't have had the medical technology to reconstruct his arm, and he'd have retired after a 10 year career with a record of 133-125 and a 3.40 ERA.This is true. According to what I found, Big Daddy had surgery in 1982 for a torn rotator cuff and didn't pitch that season. After pitching poorly in four starts for Columbus, the Yankees released him in June 1983. Dallas Green signed him for the Cubs later that month, and he pitched well for Quad Cities, leading to a September call-up and four starts.

In 1984 he was on and off the disabled list and generally pitched poorly. Many were outraged when the Cubs left him off the postseason roster, preferring equally-poor Dick Ruthven. The Cubs released him in November and most in baseball assumed he was done.

He got a spring training shot with Pittsburgh in 1985, who farmed him out to Hawaii. After 8 strong starts (6-2, 2.50, 54 IP) he was brought up in late May and was fabulous for five years.

In 1990 Roger Craig ran him into the ground. The 41-year-old started 11 of the Giant's first 44 games, four times on three days rest, landing him on the DL. This essentially ended his career.

[Cougar]

In 1990 Roger Craig ran him into the ground. The 41-year-old started 11 of the Giant's first 44 games, four times on three days rest, landing him on the DL. This essentially ended his career.

That's just insane. Wow.

[538280]

That is insane. I believe Craig was known for running pitchers into the ground though. Reuschel's career even beyond his probably being very underrated is pretty fascinating. There aren't many pitchers who are great for a while then just dissapear injured, are sent down to the minors for years, and then reappear as an elite pitcher again. He even found himself on the cover of SI:

http://www.nostalgiables.com/RickReuschelSI.jpg