Deacon Phillippe

[Cowtipper]

Deacon Phillippe played from 1899 to 1913, going 189-109 with a 2.59 ERA. He won over 15 games seven times and over 20 games six times, and his career ERA was half a point lower than the league average ERA from when he played.

A solid postseason pitcher, he had a 3-2 record and a 2.70 ERA in seven postseason games. While he didn't lead the league in too much (his black ink was only 13), he did lead the league in WL% in 1910, WHIP in 1903, BB/9IP five times and K/BB ratio four times. On the all-time lists he ranks pretty high in a few categories, including ERA (51st), winning percentage (43rd), WHIP (22nd) and BB/9IP (16th).

Statistically, he is similar to three Hall of Famers: John Ward, Jack Chesbro and Addie Joss.

He received Hall of Fame votes four times.

So, what do you think? Should Phillippe be in the Hall of Fame?

[STLCards2]

Phillippe is in the long line of very good pitchers who looked great at times with an outstanding Pirates defense (one that challenges the Frank Chance Cubs and Brooks Robinson Orioles as greatest all-time) backing him up. This list includes Jack Chesbro, Vic Willis, Sam Leever, and Jesse Tanehill. Willis did enough apart of his team to earn a HOF birth, but the other guys (though largely forgotten if a tad underrated) are definitely on the outside looking in. I would estimate that 1/4 to 1/4 of the runs Phillippe, Chesbro, Tanehill, and Leever prevented over their careers can be attributed to the Pirates' defense.

[dgarza]

Deacon Phillippe... why the last start? That does not help his case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Phillippe is in the long line of very good pitchers who looked great at times with an outstanding Pirates defense (one that challenges the Frank Chance Cubs and Brooks Robinson Orioles as greatest all-time) backing him up. This list includes Jack Chesbro, Vic Willis, Sam Leever, and Jesse Tanehill. Willis did enough apart of his team to earn a HOF birth, but the other guys (though largely forgotten if a tad underrated) are definitely on the outside looking in. I would estimate that 1/4 to 1/4 of the runs Phillippe, Chesbro, Tanehill, and Leever prevented over their careers can be attributed to the Pirates' defense.

Here are Philippe's 10 best comps:

Sam Leever (940)
Jesse Tannehill (938)
Urban Shocker (909)
John Ward (907) *
Larry Corcoran (904)
Babe Adams (903)
Ed Reulbach (898)
Jack Chesbro (896) *
Jeff Pfeffer (893)
Addie Joss (889) *

As for the HOFers on this list: Ward isn't truly comparable, IMO, because he played in a different era, where the game was much different. Ward is in the HOF as a pioneer more than anything else, although he was a star in the 1880s. Chesbro is considered by some to be a HOF mistake, and he probably would NOT be in the HOF had he not won 41 games in 1904, the modern record (although there are some caveats to that being the record). Joss is similar only because he died young; he was younger than Philippe, and his ERA was much lower vs. league than was Philippe's.

In his defense, Philippe was an extreme control pitcher; he led the NL in lowest BB per 9 innings 5 years in a row. He also led the league in K/BB ration 4 times. This is much better than what Sam Leever and Jesse Tannehill posted, and it suggests that Philippe did more than just throwing strikes and allowing the defense to make him look good.

The first question for me is "Why Philippe and not Leever or Tannehill?" I rate Philippe ahead of both of those guys, with Leever second and Tannehill third. Leever is an exceptionally good comp, because these guys were teammates for much of their careers. It's clear to me that Philippe's superior control AND his superior K/BB ratio means that Philippe's record had more to do with Deacon Philippe than Leever's record had to do with Sam Leever.

The second question for me is "Why Philippe and not Shocker?" I have always been more impressed with Shocker's accomplishments than Philippe's but I suppose it's time to reconsider. Shocker was a renowned Yankee Killer while pitching with the St. Louis Browns, and he was, IMO, superior to the two pitchers from the 1920s Yankee teams (Hoyt and Pennock) that actually made it into the HOF. Shocker also pitched in a tougher hitters' era; he did not have the luxury of saving his best stuff for special situations (as pitchers did in the deadball era of Philippe). Shocker is not in the HOF, and he probably should not be. I've given credit to Shocker because he took ill and died suddenly, but his illness was one of 3 weeks length, and he had been released by the Yankees months before he took sick.

The third question, for me, of course, is the question of where Philippe fits in versus other pitchers not in the HOF. My view on this is that he's down the list of all the eligible pitchers not in the HOF, but fairly far up there on the list of pitchers that pitched prior to 1920. I rate Philippe higher than Leever and Tannehill, and I rate him higher than Ed Reulbach (who was, while active, rather lightly regarded). Of his particular group of near exact contemporaries, Philippe is near to top of eligibles. (I'd have to think about it some more to figure out where he ranks.)

So I'll view him as a "maybe", and I don't think anything I'll find out about Philippe will push him into the "yes" column. I'm open to persuasion, but only somewhat.

[Freakshow]

In the Ultimate Quest project, Phillippe was not among the top 18 candidates from the decade of the 1900's. For whatever reasons, pitchers such as Tannehill, Leever, Powell and Orth were seen as better.

Phillippe is not one of the top 100 candidates for the HOF from MLB. Likewise, none of the other four pitchers named in the preceding paragraph are among the top 100 either.

[Brad Harris]

The first question for me is "Why Philippe and not Leever or Tannehill?"
Anytime I see Phillippe, Leever or Tannehill's name, that's the question that immediately pops to my mind, too. Great post.

[STLCards2]

In his defense, Philippe was an extreme control pitcher; he led the NL in lowest BB per 9 innings 5 years in a row. He also led the league in K/BB ration 4 times. This is much better than what Sam Leever and Jesse Tannehill posted, and it suggests that Philippe did more than just throwing strikes and allowing the defense to make him look good.

The first question for me is "Why Philippe and not Leever or Tannehill?" I rate Philippe ahead of both of those guys, with Leever second and Tannehill third. Leever is an exceptionally good comp, because these guys were teammates for much of their careers. It's clear to me that Philippe's superior control AND his superior K/BB ratio means that Philippe's record had more to do with Deacon Philippe than Leever's record had to do with Sam Leever.

The second question for me is "Why Philippe and not Shocker?" I have always been more impressed with Shocker's accomplishments than Philippe's but I suppose it's time to reconsider. Shocker was a renowned Yankee Killer while pitching with the St. Louis Browns, and he was, IMO, superior to the two pitchers from the 1920s Yankee teams (Hoyt and Pennock) that actually made it into the HOF. Shocker also pitched in a tougher hitters' era; he did not have the luxury of saving his best stuff for special situations (as pitchers did in the deadball era of Philippe). Shocker is not in the HOF, and he probably should not be. I've given credit to Shocker because he took ill and died suddenly, but his illness was one of 3 weeks length, and he had been released by the Yankees months before he took sick.

The third question, for me, of course, is the question of where Philippe fits in versus other pitchers not in the HOF. My view on this is that he's down the list of all the eligible pitchers not in the HOF, but fairly far up there on the list of pitchers that pitched prior to 1920. I rate Philippe higher than Leever and Tannehill, and I rate him higher than Ed Reulbach (who was, while active, rather lightly regarded). Of his particular group of near exact contemporaries, Philippe is near to top of eligibles. (I'd have to think about it some more to figure out where he ranks.)

So I'll view him as a "maybe", and I don't think anything I'll find out about Philippe will push him into the "yes" column. I'm open to persuasion, but only somewhat.

According to BP ( even if BP methods are wrong, they should be consistant since both pitchers had the same teams behind them for he most part),

Phillippe prevented 187 runs, with 92 of them attributed to his defense - for a total of 95 runs prevented.

Leever prevented 227 runs, with 87 of them attributed to his defense. For a total of 140 runs prevented.

It seems that Leever was .2 better at preventing homeruns that Phillippe, which completey offsets - if not overtakes- the better K/BB ratio. This explains the higher runs prevented start value. Strangely, BP has both pitchers recieving similar defensive support. Either way, for watever reasons, Leever was just better at not giving up runs.

Tanehill pitched a handful of seasons with a poor Boston team that makes his RAA pretty close to his PRAA.

[KCGHOST]

He would be a pretty weak addition, so I would pass.