How aware were HOF voters of Red Ruffing's 3.80 ERA?

In my Sporting News piece Tuesday on Mike Mussina, I questioned how aware Hall of Fame voters were of Red Ruffing‘s lifetime 3.80 ERA, highest in Cooperstown. My hunch: not much. I suspect this because the Baseball Writers Association of America voted Ruffing into Cooperstown in 1967, two years before the publication of MacMillan’sBaseball Encyclopedia.

As Alan Schwarz explained in his 2004 book The Numbers Game, lifetime stats for older players weren’t widely disseminated before David Neft and his team at Information Concepts, Inc. spent several years rebuilding baseball’s stat records for their landmark 1969 encyclopedia. The 1951 Official Encyclopedia of Baseball, for one, listed just batting averages for hitters and win-loss records for pitchers.

It’s part of the reason that when Ruffing was elected in 1967, he suggested that all 200-game winners, lifetime .300 hitters and 20-year players be automatically enshrined. Such statistics were fairly easy to find. [There was also still some support during the ’60s for the concept of automatic enshrinement, even after the Hall of Fame forbid it in 1956.  The BBWAA simply wasn’t inducting many players in these years.]

Granted, publications at least occasionally published more in-depth stats, most notably perhaps The Sporting News with its “daguerreotypes” that it periodically ran for older players. It carried one for Ruffing on March 4, 1967, two weeks after the BBWAA voted him in, listing his 3.80 ERA as well as a range of other stats.

But I couldn’t find a mention of that 3.80 ERA in the archives at newspapers.com, and I’m curious how many of the 292 Hall of Fame voters in 1967 knew of it. In fact, the bigger issue with Ruffing‘s candidacy, from both newspaper and Sporting News stories that I came across, seems to have been his win-loss record: that he had more wins than just a handful of pitchers enshrined; that he had poor records in his early years with the Boston Red Sox, then a perennial American League doormat; and that he fared better with the powerhouse New York Yankees. The Sporting News also made several mentions of Ruffing‘s fine postseason numbers.

Anyhow, it’s telling to me that several of the pitchers with the highest ERAs in the Hall of Fame got in before 1969. For the ones enshrined in the years immediately following, I’d point out that momentum for induction often takes several years, even decades and that some of these pitchers could have built a critical mass of support before their lifetime ERAs were well-known.

Consider this list of the 10 highest lifetime ERAs in Cooperstown, compiled with the help of Baseball-Reference.com’s Play Index tool:

Player Lifetime ERA Year inducted
 Red Ruffing  3.80  1967
 Ted Lyons 3.67  1955
 Jesse Haines 3.64  1970
 Herb Pennock 3.60 1948
 Waite Hoyt 3.59  1969
 Tom Glavine  3.54  2014
 Early Wynn 3.54  1972
 Burleigh Grimes 3.53 1964
 Dennis Eckersley 3.50 2004
 Robin Roberts 3.41 1976

[Also, and this is mostly for my friend Adam Darowski, I suspect that Wes Ferrell was denied induction more due to character issues than his 4.04 ERA. I can only imagine the precedent that may have been set had Ferrell had a less volatile personality. Jamie Moyer can curse Ferrell’s memory in a few years when his 4.25 ERA gets him quickly turned down by Hall voters.]

Perhaps the BBWAA was willing to look past some things with Ruffing. That March 4, 1967 Sporting News carried another interesting tidbit, noting:

Without [Cleveland Plain Dealer sports editor Hal Lebovitz’s] help, Red couldn’t have been elected this year. Here’s why:

After Ruffing failed to gain enshrinement in 1966, Lebovitz [then president of the BBWAA] discovered certain discrepancies in the ballots. Some ex-players who were no longer eligible were listed. It was rightly reasoned that several of them possibly received votes that might otherwise have gone to Ruffing and others.

So, the BBWAA petitioned the Hall of Fame executive committee for a special election this year. The request was granted and Ruffing received one more opportunity. It was to be his last, until the need for a run-off prolonged the process.

The rest you know.

The BBWAA had voted every other year for the preceding decade, causing a backlog of players comparable to the current ballot, and I had wondered what prompted the shift. I wouldn’t have put money down that Ruffing caused it, but then, the BBWAA and the Hall of Fame have occasionally made up the rules as they’ve gone for players they wish to honor. That’s a post for another time, though.

8 thoughts on “How aware were HOF voters of Red Ruffing's 3.80 ERA?”

  1. Interesting. But Ruffing played on some dreadful Red Sox teams early in his career. The Red Sox finished last every season Ruffing was a starter (from 1925-1930). He was 39-96(!) with Boston and 231-124 with the Yankees. That is a winning percentage of .289 with Boston against .651 with New York. His adjusted ERA with New York was outstanding. Of course, such a stat was not available to writers in 1967. You are almost certainly correct that writers probably had little idea of Ruffing’s career ERA. But it seems many writers still rely on “gut instinct” when voting for the Hall of Fame. There is a legend that Lloyd Waner was elected because the Vets Committee thought his numbers were those of his brother. Bill James said this was unlikely, since it would be rare for the committee even to look at statistics before casting their votes…

  2. It should be borne in mind that Ruffing pitched in a high scoring era. Of the 22 highest run scoring seasons in the AL 11 of them occurred during his career.

    1. Of course. It’s why Ruffing’s ERA, when adjusted for the era and ballpark he played in, is much better than Jack Morris or Rube Marquard, among others. And they didn’t have his bat.

  3. Ya know, you could use this to build a good case for re-voting on all players that were on the ballot pre-1970. After all, there’s a clear case here that the BBWAA voters of the time didn’t have enough information on players, to be legitimate decision makers on who got in and who didn’t. It wouldn’t be a reinterpretion of the stats or relying on advanced stats that weren’t invented or understood pre-1970, but more like a re-examination of players stats.

    I for one, would love to see all HOF players re-examined and have some kicked out if their stats don’t hold up while others would be added in if their stats hold up.

    1. The question of exactly whose stats “hold up” is a subjective one. The members of today’s BBWAA obviously differ on the Hall-worthiness of certain players and which stats — if any– ought to be considered when casting votes. Look at the cases of Tim Raines, Curt Schilling, Mussina, Martinez, Trammell et al. Some stats-savvy people believe all belong in the Hall, while others believe none of these should be elected. In short, a case can made for — or against — any of these potential inductees. The Hall of Fame has given the task of electing the players to the BBWAA, but the Hall of Fame has the last word regarding policy. I doubt they would welcome any effort to remove players already enshrined.

    2. Eh, you don’t want to kick anyone out. I agree with what Bill James said a couple of years ago on his site (according to a reader here, I think) that kicking people out would give inductions a feeling of uncertainty and cheapen the honor.

  4. Yeah, Douglas, it is kind of substantive, true. I’d kick out a few players. I don’t think it would cheapen inductions unless legitimate HOFers were let go. Even borderline players could stay in, but a few of those guys… eehhhh I don’t know of any standard by which they belong in Cooperstown.

  5. I agree with Graham that “kicking out” players would be counter-productive. There is no fixed standard for election, so how would you justify which players got the boot and which got to stay? That has been a big problem from the beginning. The Hall has never been reserved for the “best of the best.” There have been questionable inductions from the beginning (mainly the choices of the various Veterans and Old-Timers committees). I see no advantage in removing players, in any case. What would be the benefit of taking down the plaques of Tommy McCarthy, Elmer Flick (who I think belongs), Eppa Rixey, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell or Chick Hafey? Just as there are vocal critics of those who are elected, there would be angry voices raised against those who were withdrawn from the Hall.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *