Discussion Thread: ATG 8 Player Addition #3 Election

In a 9 year career, Schupp had only two seasons of any consequence, pitching over 200 IP in only those two seasons.

If you accept Smokey Joe Wood -- http://www.baseball-reference.com/playe ... jo02.shtml -- why not Schupp? Wood had only 2 seasons with 200+ innings, and only 7 with 100+, and only 5 with an ERA+ above 125.

As for Schupp, see:

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/6b376bb5

(note: Bonesetter Reese!)

from the SABR article:

----------

Schupp finished the [1916] season with an ERA of 0.90 and was universally credited with National League’s ERA title. He pitched in 30 games, surrendering 14 earned runs in 140 innings and qualifying for the ERA title under that season’s criteria ....

After his two stellar seasons, McGraw had high expectations for the 27 year-old heading into the 1918 season. “But that winter I went to a camp,” Schupp recalled. “There was snow on the ground, I think maybe I caught cold in the arm, though it didn’t bother me then, but the next spring I was up against it. The very first ball I tried to pitch in spring training, a sharp pain struck through my shoulder and my arm went dead. I couldn’t do anything with it.”24 Conversely, there were later rumors that the easy-going left-hander had injured his arm in a fight that offseason.25 Still another report had him hurting his arm while pitching during spring training at the Giants training camp in Marlin, Texas.26

In any event, Schupp was not ready for the start of the season, and as his arm showed few signs of coming around, the club sent him to Bonesetter Reese, an injury specialist in Youngstown, Ohio, who famously worked with athletes. After stating that he popped a tendon close to the shoulder back into place, Reese told Schupp he would be ready to go after resting his arm for least a week.27 Unfortunately, Schupp’s struggles returned once McGraw sent him back out to the mound: in his first appearance of the season, one inning in relief on June 6, Schupp yielded three runs; a month later when Schupp finally received his first start, he gave up ten runs in eight innings, walking 10 men. McGraw then used Schupp sporadically throughout the remainder of the war-shortened season, including one more start.

After the season, Schupp, like all American men of military age in a “non-essential” occupation was required to either join the military or take a job in an “essential” industry. Schupp went to work with a shipbuilding company in New York ....

[Then he has some ups and downs in MLB but his arm is shot a lot of the time, and ...]

In 1923 Schupp began a seven-year stretch in the American Association during which he tossed at least 198 innings every season. His best year was his first of three in Kansas City, when he finished 19-10 ....

--------

I didn't say I wouldn't accept Shupp. I just said he has a very small sample size of being a productive player and there are many more cards that I would rather have over him.

That said, trying to compare Schupp to Wood is not really a comparison. Yes, Wood had seven straight years with a ERA+ over 100. Schupp only has two. Wood led the 1912 Red Sox to a World Championship, going 3-1 in the Series. In a day when starters were expected to finish what they started, Wood averaged 21 complete games. Wood had a career ERA+ of 147; Schupp's was 88.

in my opinion, Wood has a solid place in MLB history, one that Schupp just doesn't have.

what I mean is, they both got cut short by injury -- and Schupp's 0.90 ERA is an all-time record, if the 1916 rules are accepted and 140 IP counts -- that single-season ERA alone should be enough for ATG (Candy Cummings is remembered only because he invented the curveball!)

7 straight seasons with ERA+ above 100 isn't saying much ... but I like Smoky Joe too (four of those 7 were great)

I use Greinke, and I'm all about winning.

Fro the record - I don't have anything against the Greinke card. It's basically the Mark Fydrich card without the "9" fatigue rating. It's just that there's nothing special about it and it seems to sit on the FA wire in most of the leagues I'm in.

-The Sheik

vote for schupp! we can use another lefty that doesn't have #hrs plastered all over his card.

This is my take: I want the most expensive cards in the set to be the greatest players in baseball history.
I want Willie and Mickey and the Babe and Ted Williams and Honus Wagner and Rogers Hornsby at the top. I want Tom Seaver and Sandy Koufax and Greg Maddux and Pete Alexander and Pedro Martinez at the top of the pitchers. I don't want one or two-hit wonders at or near the top of the scale. I remember a great outcry back in the early days when Roger Maris' 1961 was going to be added, that that one season was not indicative of Maris' career. Turns out that Maris card has it's flaws and is not at the top of the list by any means, but the point remains.

Others want the best CARDS no matter WHO they are (or aren't). A small sample size card like Gates Brown or Kid Speer is no big deal to some guys. I want the greatest PLAYERS at the top. No one is necessarily wrong in what they want, but we do come at this with different GOALS.

When I play $999, I cringe every time Hugh Duffy is drafted in the top 15. Not because the card doesn't warrant the pick, but because I just don't recognize him as one of the top 15 players in history.

When I play $999, I cringe every time Hugh Duffy is drafted in the top 15. Not because the card doesn't warrant the pick, but because I just don't recognize him as one of the top 15 players in history.

You may not think him to be in the top 15, but you shouldn't slight him just because his career was in the dimly lit era of baseball. Here's a nice article about him, highlighting Duffy's role in mentoring Ted Williams. Duffy's career warrants a pretty good card, I would think.

http://www.thenationalpastimemuseum.com/article/hugh-duffy-68-years-baseball

Bill

Enjoyable read, thanks. But still, .440? I doubt he could come close to .340 under modern conditions.

I agree with you that he might have trouble hitting .440, but I think someone like Duffy probably would have been reasonably able to adjust to modern conditions. The other remark I would bring up is that many of us (well, some of us ) believe that anyone in the Hall of Fame should have their best year in ATG. 1894 is Duffy's best year (though only a 6.8 WAR), so it is normal (at least to me) that that year should be with us. I think where we might agree is on just how that card translates. We all know that SOM is contextual; that an 1894 batter will produce his real results when he faces his own competition. But should (or would) Duffy produce .440 and 51 doubles in the world of 100+ mph closers...like you, I'm not so sure. I'm not even sure that Willie could do it either.....and this as Willie's greatest fan.

Bill