Al Orth

[Cowtipper]

Al Orth played 15 seasons in the big leagues, going 204-189 with a 3.37 ERA. He won 15 games in a season six times, and 20 games in a season twice. In 1906, he led the league in wins. Furthermore, he led the league in W% in 1899, CG in 1906, shutouts in 1901, saves in 1903, IP in 1906, WHIP in 1901, and BB/9IP in 1901 and 1902.

Statistically, he is similar to two Hall of Famers, according to Baseball Reference: Jesse Haines and Rube Marquard (although that's not much to brag about). The other pitchers he is similar to are Lee Meadows, Dutch Leonard, Dolf Luque, Larry French, Larry Jackson, Paul Derringer, Silver King and Red Donahue. Through age 33, he was most similar to Burleigh Grimes, it should be noted.

Orth was also a fine hitting pitcher, batting .273 in 1,698 career at-bats. He even played 73 games at positions other than pitcher in his career.

So, do you think Al Orth should be in the Hall of Fame?

[EricAnno]

Al Orth played 15 seasons in the big leagues, going 204-189 with a 3.37 ERA. He won 15 games in a season six times, and 20 games in a season twice. In 1906, he led the league in wins. Furthermore, he led the league in W% in 1899, CG in 1906, shutouts in 1901, saves in 1903, IP in 1906, WHIP in 1901, and BB/9IP in 1901 and 1902.

Statistically, he is similar to two Hall of Famers, according to Baseball Reference: Jesse Haines and Rube Marquard (although that's not much to brag about). The other pitchers he is similar to are Lee Meadows, Dutch Leonard, Dolf Luque, Larry French, Larry Jackson, Paul Derringer, Silver King and Red Donahue. Through age 33, he was most similar to Burleigh Grimes, it should be noted.

Orth was also a fine hitting pitcher, batting .273 in 1,698 career at-bats. He even played 73 games at positions other than pitcher in his career.

So, do you think Al Orth should be in the Hall of Fame?

Absolutely not.

His career ERA+ is 100, meaning he was an average pitcher. In seven of his fifteen seasons, his ERA+ was 98 or lower. His 3.37 ERA is relatively unimpressive considering the time period in which he played. His WHIP (1.259) is also relatively unimpressive. I would never put this guy in the Hall of Fame.

(Also, it should be noted that the year he led the league in winning percentage, he pitched in only 21 games and started just 15 of them and logged less than 150 innings. Just throwing it out there.)

[OleMissCub]

A 3.37 ERA in that time? That's like a 6.00 ERA today.

Pass.

[EricAnno]

A 3.37 ERA in that time? That's like a 6.00 ERA today.

He was the Casey Fossum of his day. :ughh

[jjpm74]

In the top 200 pitchers project (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=85925), Al Orth was judged against his peers in the 1893-1919 group. He received 0 votes and did not make it out of the first round. This would place him in the 350-400 range when ranking just pitchers all time which leaves him about 275 slots shy of the HOF at his position.

When taken out of context, Orth's statistics look decent, but when putting him in the perspective of his era, at least 25 and as many as all 32 of these pitchers had better careers than Orth:

1. Red Ames
2. Chief Bender
3. Mordecai Brown
4. Jack Chesbro
5. Eddie Ciccotte
6. Jack Coombs
7. Nig Cuppy
8. Bill Dinneen
9. Clark Griffith
10. Noodles Hahn
11. Addie Joss
12. Sam Leever
13. Rube Marquard
14. Christy Mathewson
15. Joe McGinnity
16. Kid Nichols
17. Deacon Phillippe
18. Eddie Plank
19. Ed Reulbach
20. Amos Rusie
21. Jack Stivetts
22. Jesse Tannehill
23. Dummy Taylor
24. Jack Taylor
25. Hippo Vaughn
26. Rube Waddell
27. Ed Walsh
28. Gus Weyhing
29. Doc White
30. Vic Willis
31. Smoky Joe Wood
32. Cy Young

Al Orth would be a #3 or 4 starter on a good team or a #2 starter on a struggling team if he was from the current era of baseball. He was not a HOF pitcher.

[dgarza]

I think Rube Marquard is his best comparison. "Rube Marquard" is also a good "end of story".

[KCGHOST]

Al Oerter would have a better chance.

[EricAnno]

Al Oerter would have a better chance.

So would Al Otero.

[Aqua]

Orth isn't anywhere near a hall of famer, as everyone seems to agree. He's criminally overlooked in two categories, however: pitchers who hit extremely well (a 92 OPS+ in nearly 1800 PAs...he was just shy of being a better hitter than pitcher), and pitchers with awesome nicknames. "The Curveless Wonder?" It's...almost as backhanded a compliment as a nickname can get.

[StrawberryField]

there are enough overated deadball pitchers in the Hall.

Jack Morris not being in the Hall is a Shame. Staff Ace on 3 world series Championship teams. Most wins in the 80's. Pitched the greatest game 7 in World Series History! So What if his rate stats don't measure. All he did was show up to pitch and Win 254 times...

[EricAnno]

there are enough overated deadball pitchers in the Hall.

Yet you are going to talk about Jack Morris...

Jack Morris not being in the Hall is a Shame.

No...it really, really isn't.

Staff Ace on 3 world series Championship teams.

This is such a stupid and moronic argument (honestly, I'm not saying that you are stupid and moronic). So we should put guys in the Hall of Fame because they are aces of teams that are good enough to win the World Series? That makes literally no sense.

Most wins in the 80's.

Again, meaningless.

Pitched the greatest game 7 in World Series History!

Don Larsen threw a perfect game in the World Series. He's not in the Hall of Fame, nor does he deserve to be.

So What if his rate stats don't measure. All he did was show up to pitch and Win 254 times...

So have countless other pitchers. The only reasons you have given for why Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame is because he was the "ace" of three Championship teams, he won the most games of '80s, he pitched a great Game Seven, and he won 254 games. His 105 ERA+ says he should not get in, and he most certainly will not.