In our last results post, I announced that I’m going to stop voting for Pud Galvin for at least one election to try to avoid becoming entrenched in my position. Honestly, I’d stopped thinking about Galvin and started simply repeating 360+ wins and over 6000 innings. Doing that is neither a good argument, nor is it extremely collegial when Eric and I have decided we have to agree on our final HoME. In this post I intend to look at some other statistics, many of which are more advanced, to try to see how I should vote in 1983.
But before we can get into any analysis of whether or not Galvin, or any other player, is deserving of induction, we need to consider the number of players we’re going to put into the HoME. After all, if we’ll induct only a dozen, there’s no way Galvin is in. If we induct a thousand, he’s an absolute no-brainer. Regular readers may know that our number through the 2014 election will be 212, the equivalent of the number of players in the Hall. Further, Eric and I have recently agreed to a hitter/pitcher breakdown, or at least an approximation thereof. We’ve determined that our HoME should include 28-30% pitchers. That’s 59-63 out of the 212. Further, depending on whether you see Dennis Eckersley as a starter or a reliever, we think we’ll induct between zero and three relievers. So that means we’re going to have a HoME that includes 56-63 starting pitchers. Our question today is whether or not Pud Galvin is among the 56-63 best starting pitchers in history. I’m going to explore this question through an analysis of Galvin’s place among the 244 starting pitchers in our database who are eligible for the HoME through the 2014 season. Once there, we see some very strong reasons to vote for Galvin, and some very strong reasons to ignore him.
Why Pud Galvin Belongs in the HoME
Just about everyone in the world can’t be wrong. Right? Pud is in the Hall of Fame, the Hall of Stats, and the Hall of Merit. He’s in the personal Halls of others who have completed a similar project – Adam Darowski of the Hall of Stats, Ross Carey of Replacement Level Podcast, Dalton Mack of The Thinking Fan, and Dan McCloskey of Left Field. The only Hall in which I don’t find Galvin is Bryan O’Connor’s at the Replacement Level Baseball Blog. And last I saw, he has only 187 players in his version. My previous position has been in line with each of the positions above. I’ve found Galvin worthy but wouldn’t if we were only to induct 187 players.
So let’s look at some other measures to see how Galvin stacks up.
Galvin was a terrible hitter, leading the league in hitter strikeouts four times and pitcher strikeouts zero. It makes more sense for his cards to exist without a bat.
The most conventional of these numbers say that Galvin is an easy call. After all, how do you now elect the guy with the second most innings and fifth most wins in history? Rogers Hornsby is second all-time in batting average. Ty Cobb is fifth in games played. Randy Johnson is second in strikeouts. Eddie Plank is fifth in shutouts. Babe Ruth is second in runs batted in. Phil Niekro is fifth in games started. So you get the point. Anyone at the top of these lists seems like an easy call. And his Gray Ink score, a measure of how frequently he was in his league’s top-10, is #18. Welcome to the neighborhood with Gaylord Perry, Carl Hubbell, Mike Mussina and Tim Keefe.
At the HoME, we’re not so conventional though. We look at stuff like WAR. And in terms of Wins Above Replacement at Baseball Reference (bWAR), Galvin ranks #27 in our data set. The guys closest to him are easy calls like Steve Carlton, Nolan Ryan, Robin Roberts, and Fergie Jenkins. If you prefer the Fangraphs version of pitching WAR (fWAR), we’re looking at #35. He’s closest to Red Ruffing, Bob Friend, Tom Glavine, and Tim Keefe. While that second group isn’t as impressive as The Little Steam Engine’s bWAR colleagues, it certainly suggests that he’s qualified. And for one more WAR measure, we look to JAWS, Jay Jaffe’s method of determining Hall of Fame worthiness. Galvin is #25, between Fergie Jenkins, Amos Rusie, Curt Schilling, and Mike Mussina. However you slice conventional WAR, Galvin seems worthy. If we look at his best five, seven, or ten seasons, he’s inside of the low end of 56 starting pitchers we’re going to put in the HoME.
By some standard measures, Galvin is a no-brainer. By some more advanced measures, he’s quite an easy call too. So what exists aside from the standard and the advanced you ask? There’s context. Contextually, Galvin doesn’t do quite as well.
Why Pud Galvin Does Not Belong in the HoME
Sadly (or not) for Pud Galvin voters, this section is longer than the one above. It’s long enough, in fact, that it could use sub-headings. Eric’s excited.
More Conventional Failures
Really? A bat again? Maybe Eric’s not voting for Galvin because he can’t find photographic evidence that Gentle Jeems pitched.
Take a look at ERA+, an ERA adjusted to league average where the number above or below 100 is a pitcher’s distance away from average. We see that that Galvin is tied for #184 in our data set with an ERA+ of 107, which means for his career he was only 7% better than league average. Other pitchers who shake out the same way by this measure are Mark Langston, Bobo Newsom, Bob Friend, and Kenny Rogers. They’re not exactly HoME- quality hurlers.
Let’s consider that Gray Ink score once again. Sure, there are some all-time greats right around Galvin, but the top of the list is littered with some lesser stars like Chief Bender, Smoky Joe Wood, Al Spalding, and Jim Whitney. A lot of old timey pitchers fare well by this measure because it simply measures top-ten, and it’s a lot easier to finish in your league’s top-ten when there are eight teams than when there are fourteen. And it’s easier to finish there when every team uses two starters compared to five.
A more accurate measure might be Black Ink, a measure of leading one’s league. By this stat, Galvin is #86, tied with pitchers like Paul Derringer, David Cone, Kevin Brown, and Fernando Valenzuela. But remember, it was easier to lead the league in Galvin’s time than Fernando’s. There were fewer pitchers with whom to compete.
There’s one other stat that might make Galvin look like a borderliner until we unpack it a little. By RAA, Runs Above Average, Pud ranks #67. That’s not so bad until we consider that in his time it was a lot easier to be above average, or at least it seems so. Guys he trails in RAA include Tony Mullane, Charlie Buffinton, Tommy Bond, Jim Whitney, and Bobby Mathews.
A Whole Different Ball Game
A lot of things were easier during Galvin’s time. Pud’s career lasted from 1879-1892, save eight games in 1875. The following are some rules highlights during the career of Gentle Jeems.
- 1879: The number of balls it took to draw a walk was reduced to nine.
- 1880: The number of balls it took to draw a walk was reduced to eight.
- 1883: The pitcher no longer had to deliver the ball underhand.
- 1884: All delivery restrictions for pitchers were removed, and six balls became a walk.
- 1887: Hitters could no longer call for high or low pitchers, five balls became a walk, and a batter was awarded a base when hit by a pitch.
- 1889: Four balls finally became a walk.
- 1893: The mound was moved from 50 feet to today’s 60’6”.
There are two highlights above that cause me to adjust my personal WAR. The first adjustment is caused by the 1883 and 1884 rules that ended restrictions on how a pitch could be delivered. And the second is the 1893 rule to move the mound. The latter came after Galvin’s career ended, so he pitched his entire career from 50 feet. Surely there’s an advantage for pitchers at 50 feet. It’s easier on the arm, which is why every one of the top 104 single-season innings totals in history came in 1892 or earlier. The 1883 rule change brought about Galvin’s second best season, and the change in 1884 brought about his best. Is it possible that Galvin just adjusted to overhand pitchers sooner than the rest of the league? Is it possible that those adjustments coincided with Galvin’s athletic peak so he looks better than he might otherwise? Yes and yes. Throwing overhand made Galvin into a star for a couple of seasons.
Here lies a man who may or may not have used monkey testosterone. Maybe that’s why Eric isn’t voting for him. Steroid taint.
It has been argued that the pitcher’s job when Galvin played was more to initiate contact in order to get a play started than anything else. And I generally buy that argument. Throwing underhand and from 50 feet make Galvin’s career so different from today’s pitchers that I adjust the heck out of his WAR totals.
Yes, he looks pretty great by straight WAR, but with my adjustments, his bWAR drops to #78, between Bob Caruthers, Larry Jackson, Babe Adams, and Waite Hoyt. His fWAR with my adjustments is worse. He’s at #129, between Mike Garcia, Jim Maloney, Dizzy Dean, and Virgil Trucks. And by the time I stop doing math, my final WAR adjustment brings Galvin to #74, between David Wells, Bob Caruthers, Larry Jackson, and Mickey Lolich. With all of my own adjustments included, Galvin’s straight WAR doesn’t rank in the top-63 starting pitchers, which is the high end of the number we can have in the HoME.
Career Shape
Let’s look at Galvin’s bWAR numbers by season.
18.4, 9.8, 9.1, 7.6, 6.4, 5.7, 5.1, 3.9, 2.7, 2.6, 2.4, 0.6, 0.6, 0.1, -1.3
And now his numbers with my adjustments included.
14.4, 5.5, 5.4, 5.0, 4.9, 4.5, 4.4, 2.5, 2.0, 1.9, 1.4, 1.0, 0.7, -0.1, -0.3
There’s a pretty insane peak of one season. Then there are a half-dozen nice years, but those seasons are nothing special. And then there are eight seasons with not a lot of value. Should we really elect someone to the HoME only one great season?
Of players who are in the HoME or could possibly be elected, there are only a handful without at least two six-win seasons by my measurements. Alphabetically, they are Pud Galvin, Tommy John, Ted Lyons, Rick Reuschel, Don Sutton, and Early Wynn. Jack Quinn and Bucky Walters are still in our consideration set too, but I don’t think they stand much of a chance. Simply put, Pud Galvin’s career shape isn’t too impressive.
Contemporaries
One last thing as we continue to bash Galvin. We should look at him compared to his contemporaries. If we consider the top players in the game by three-year and five-year WAR totals – the conventional bWAR totals – Galvin doesn’t look too great.
Three-Year Rank Five-Year Rank 1879-1881 3 1879-1883 3 1880-1882 6 1880-1884 3 1881-1883 5 1881-1885 5 1882-1884 4 1882-1886 5 1883-1885 4 1883-1887 3 1884-1886 7 1884-1888 7 1885-1887 18 1885-1889 16 1886-1888 8 1886-1890 20 1887-1889 15 1887-1891 25 1888-1890 41 1888-1892 78 1889-1891 63 1890-1892 45
Sure, it might seem impressive to be the fifth best starter in the game, but when in 1882, for example, there were only 14 pitchers to throw over 147 innings, fifth best isn’t so hot any longer.
Conclusions
I reached my conclusion for the 1982 HoME election two weeks ago. I’m not voting for Gentle Jeems, The Little Steam Engine, or Pud this time around. But I came to that decision out of collegiality rather than a new found belief that Galvin is undeserving. I’m simply not going to draw any conclusions today about whether or not Pud Galvin is worthy of induction into the Hall of Miller and Eric.
What I am going to do is to say that it’s not easy to vote for Galvin based on the particulars related to his peak or his career value. In my final calculations adding peak, consecutive, and career numbers to spit out one total that I hope will explain it all,Galvin ranks #63 among starters. That puts him on the absolute borderline. To justify a vote, one needs to split hairs or be impressed by the career counting totals – the wins and the innings. Really, it’s not too simple. And that’s why the debate continues.
Miller
the Hall of Miller and Eric 
And you didn’t even mention that Galvin took an elixir containing monkey testosterone in order to stay in shape. That ought to do some damage to his credibility. The first of the PED boys. 🙂
Nicely thought out article. I’ve always had trouble determining how good pitchers in the pre-mound days were versus the modern types because of the rules differences. Good to see you’re taking them into account.
v
Posted by verdun2 | April 23, 2014, 8:44 amAh, but I did. Check out the article’s last picture!
Posted by Miller | April 23, 2014, 9:02 amI stand corrected.
v
Posted by verdun2 | April 23, 2014, 10:49 amVery thorough and well-reasoned analysis. As the lone opponent of Pud’s case among personal halls you called out, I thought of defend my position. First off, I’m not offended by a Hall with Galvin in it. There are far worse pitchers in the real Hall.
As you elucidate well, the game was very different in Galvin’s day. Today, a pitcher’s WAR reflects his ability to prevent runs (or manage true outcomes), multiplied by volume. Most healthy starters throw similar numbers of innings, so the relative weight assigned to run prevention and volume by the WAR formula seems reasonable. In the underhand and 50-foot-mound days, there’s evidence that a few great pitchers (Tommy Bond, Old Hoss) had certain skills that prevented runs. But with so few strikeouts, so few homers, and walk rules evolving, so much of run prevention was accomplished by the fielders. With less separation among pitchers in run prevention, the majority of the deviation in WAR is tied to volume. Health may be a skill, and most teams wouldn’t trust a bad pitcher to throw 500 innings, but Galvin scores well in WAR largely because he pitched 6,000 innings in various forms of baseball.
Save some space for David Cone and Kevin Brown.
Posted by Bryan | April 23, 2014, 10:07 amThanks so much for checking in Bryan. I’ve enjoyed your stuff at Replacement Level for a couple of years now. It feels good to be part of the community.
Neither a Hall with nor a Hall without Pud Galvin would be as offensive as one without David Cone or Kevin Brown, I think. Though I can’t say for sure until our 2007 and 2011 elections respectively, I’d expect that they’ll both coast in on the first ballot.
Posted by Miller | April 23, 2014, 1:01 pm