hot topics

Rube Waddell (194-134) is Addie Joss (160-97) plus 34-37, as near contemporaries in the same league. Why is Waddell 11th on the 1941 ballot, and Joss in danger of dropping out?

This is another version of "if-then." If Rube, then Addie. If 194-134, then 160-97. The fallacy in this particular version--well, there are a bunch, including the validity of W-L as the only or key measure of value, plus offensive and defensive support, and others--but in this particular version the particular fallacy is that Rube didn't go 160-97 and then, instead of retiring, 34-37. The 34-37 is embedded in his career, inside of seasons in which he was exceptionally effective.

Let's compare W-L records, since that what Ardo is focused on, from high to low with ERA+ thrown in for fun.

Best--Waddell 27-10 (180) Joss 27-11 (137)--advantage Rube
Next--Joss 24-11 (205) Waddell 25-19 (165)--Joss
3rd--Waddell 24-7 (179) Joss 21-9 (152)--Rube
4th--Joss 20-12 (131) Waddell 21-16 (125)--too close to call without more info
5th--Waddell 19-13 (121) Joss 18-13 (130)--too close to call
6th--Waddell 19-14 (127) Joss 17-13 (124)--too close
7th--Joss 14-10 (159) Waddell 15-17 (123)--Joss
8th--Joss 14-13 (150) Waddell 14-16 (108)--Joss
9th--Waddell 11-14 (102) Joss 5-5 (114)--Rube
10th through 14th--Waddell 8-13 (153), 7-2 (125), 3-1 (70), 0-1 (133)--Rube

Throw out Rube's advantages in years 9 through 14 if you like, but then you also have to discount Joss' very minor advantages in years 7-8, and Rube had 3 of the 4 best seasons either of them ever had. Each won 20 games 4 times. Joss' ERA+ was better than 120 8 times when he went 155-92. Rube's was better than 120 (and eligible for ERA title) 8 times at 158-109.

Joss career ERA+ was 142 with no decline. Rube's was 135 in 600 more IP, and was 146 during those 8 peak years.

So Rube was more effective during his peak. Do several years at 34-37 versus Joss at 0-0 push Joss ahead? If you want to argue as much, this is the other fallacy represented here--the inference is that 34-37 (actually, outside of his 8 peak years 35-34 with an ERA+ that is still around 108) is of negative value. This is not a generally accepted interpretation, either.

The issue with Waddell is whether his ERA+ is especially misleading because of UER, though his RA+ is still pretty good. But for those who feel the UER diminish Waddell's case, fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with making a stronger candidate of Addie Joss.

For the record, both were on my ballot last time, but I have Waddell higher and I am pretty sure I always will.

Adding to what sunnyday2 said:

When BP factors in all of Waddell's unearned runs, and factors in the fact that Joss played most of his career for contenders with good defenses, BP comes to the conclusion that they were just about equally effective, Waddell 3.63 DERA and Joss 3.65 (4.50 being average). When you consider Waddell's 600+ IP edge, Waddell comes out ahead, though neither are on my ballot.

Good analysis, sunnyday. I did not mean to argue 34-37 with about a 108 ERA+ is of negative value; in fact, it is of more (positive) value than it first seemed to me. That said, Waddell's better peak seasons and IP edge place him a tier ahead of Joss.

Hey, how do you say "goodbye" in Spanish?