Black Jack McDowell ??!!

by spengler on Dec 11, 2005 3:33 AM CST

Here I was extolling the collective wisdom of the SSS bloggers, and then, by a plurality, you guys voted Black Jack McDowell as the greatest White Sox pitcher of all-time.

I suppose I am partly to blame because I put his name in the poll. Hell, I figured he'd get a loyalty vote or two. I remember Black Jack fondly, but the greatest of all time?

Hardly. Jack won a Cy Young in 93, his best year. He won a total of 127 games, only 91 with the Sox. Career ERA+ of 110. He only pitched for the Sox for 7 years, made it to the playoffs once and never won a playoff game. In 9 post-season innings with the Sox, he had an ERA of 10 and gave up 18 hits.

If you're going to go with someone from the modern era- and this has to be the rationale for voting for McDowell, as Walsh, Faber & Lyons blow him out of the water statistically- I think Buehrle has already surpassed Black Jack quite easily, both in terms of consistency and clutch performance. Buehrle has already won 85 games as a White Sox. Career ERA+ of 128 and two post-season wins with a playoff ERA of 3.42. Plus he was integral in bringing the first championship to Chicago in 88 years.

I mean you'd even have to put Wilbur Wood, with his 4 straight 20-win seasons, career ERA of 3.24 and 163 career Sox wins ahead of Mcdowell.

Inexplicable.

Now let's see you defend your votes.

Poll

Let's try this again. Please check the appropriate box.

Yes, Spengler, you are correct. Black Jack Mcdowell is not the greatest Sox pitcher of all-time. It is someone else.

16 votes

No, talk to the hand. I'm sticking to my guns and have justified my vote in a comment below.

3 votes

19 votes | Poll has closed

SouthSideSox is a community driven site. As such, users are able to express their thoughts and opinions in a FanPost, such as this one, which represents the views of this particular fan, but not necessarily the entire community or SouthSideSox editors.

Tweet Comment 11 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Gladly

I can only say I don't spell Wilbur Wood 'none of the above'. Here is a nice explaination for my position-
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/library/columns/rw_040830.htm

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Dec 11, 2005 7:33 PM CST reply actions

then again you could make a strong case for

Urban 'Red' Faber
19 years as a Sox. Only team he ever played for.
254 wins and 213 losses. 3.15 ERA. 3 and 1 in the 1917 World Series. Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1964.
Died in Chicago.
Course he was a spitball pitcher like Lyons.

Considering the Bulls just retired #33 this quote fits right in -

"That fellow has a lot of stuff. He's got the best drop curve that I've seen along the line for some time. And his spitter is a pippin too." -- John McGraw

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Dec 11, 2005 8:43 PM CST up reply actions

Red Faber was strong

shaftr mentioned him the first time around. you gotta love those old spitballers. they really put something of themselves into every pitch.

they guy i liked, walsh, also threw the spitter.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 12, 2005 9:49 AM CST up reply actions

Buehrle

There's a strong case justifying a modern-era bias towards pitchers because they battle in a much more offense-oriented environment than even Wilbur Wood's generation (much less Faber's & Walsh's). Much is made of the diluted hitting statistics of the past 10 years, but shouldn't that conversely inflate today's pitching statistics? Along those lines, Mark Buehrle is hands down the best Sox pitcher ever. He's basically a left-handed Greg Maddux, and will surpass McDowell's numbers before his 30th birthday.

Turning the Chicago Baseball Tide - One Championship at a Time

by WestSideSoxFan on Dec 12, 2005 10:26 AM CST reply actions

I think you do have an argument

Clearly, no one is going to win 40 games or pitch 464 innings in a single season in today's game.

It would be interesting to see a study combining various adjustments. I know the ERA+ stat tries to do that (Walsh is at 145 for his career, Buehrle 128), but there are so many differences between the eras that it seems a whole stufy could be done. I could imagine the following as possibilities: fielding was probably weaker in those days (remember how those gloves looked?), perhaps resulting in higher BABIP, but the ball was apparently "dead." Pitchers were allowed to doctor/spit on the ball. I'm sure the playing fields were of poorer quality then. No steroids. No weight training. But also, less knowledge about pitching mechanics and less instruction. Who knows what you might say about umpiring, but they didn't have qwestec, and I'm sure strike zones were bigger. The absence of African-Americans diluted talent levels league-wide, a specific boon for pitchers.

I am not qualified to try to translate all that into numbers. I wonder if anyone has.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 12, 2005 11:28 AM CST up reply actions

The greatest still means something more

than just being the best. That's why I'm pushing Wood and now Faber. I would have thought the greatest would have to be a pitcher who had longevity, Hall of Fame credentials, long career with the Sox, post season heroics. Here check this out -

Faber then enjoyed the greatest success of his career in the early 1920s. The Live Ball Era was beginning, but he was among the pitchers who made the most successful transition. The spitball was phased out after the 1920 season, with Faber one of the 17 pitchers permitted to use it for the remainder of their careers; and he took advantage of Comiskey Park's spacious dimensions, surrendering only 91 home runs - barely one homer per month - from 1920 to 1931. He was one of only six pitchers to win 100 or more games in both the "dead ball" (through 1920) and live ball eras.

From 1920-22, he posted win totals of 23, 25 and 21, leading the league in ERA ('21-'22), starts ('20), innings ('22), and complete games ('21-'22). He was also among the league leaders in strikeouts each year, while pitching at least 25 complete games and over 300 innings. But the decimation of the team in the wake of the Black Sox scandal, particularly on offense, made winning on a consistent basis increasingly difficult. After being one of the top teams in the league with a powerful offense in the late 1910s, the White Sox had only two winning seasons in his last 13 years, never finishing above 5th place. His 1921 season, going 25-15 for the post-scandal team that limped to a 62-92 finish, is particularly remarkable; from 1921 to 1929 his record was 126-103. Despite the widespread hitting of the era, he did not post an ERA over 3.88 until he was 41. Perhaps his last great performance was a one-hitter at age 40 in 1929.

Look how bad those Sox teams were!! And this was not all in the dead ball era. Remember the 27 Yankees? There was plenty of hitting. Some of the greatest hitters of all time played in that era.

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Dec 12, 2005 6:56 PM CST reply actions

I love digging up stories on these old players

first, i think your comment about faber's bridging modern and deadball eras is interesting. the only caveat, i think, is that his spitter was grandfathered in after it was outlawed for everyone else. but you are right that he did do remarkably well in the 20's after the dominating team of the black sox era was dismantled.

but if you're thinking about faber, you have to think of ted lyons too-- who had 6 more victories than faber and no spitter. my position, however, is that faber's world series success in 1917 puts him ahead of lyons (altho lyons did throw a no-hitter but faber didn't). ultimately, looking at it more closely another time, i think i could be convinced that faber is more justly considered the all-time greatest sox pitcher rather than ed walsh (who did throw 2 no-hitters but only pitched in the dead-ball era). one thing is for sure, black jack mcdowell it ain't.

also, faber's history has some fascinating wrinkles:

he was sick and did not play in the 1919 world series. it is obviously impossible to tell what he might have done if tempted with the scheme, but for better or worse, he avoided being implicated in the Black Sox scandal even by association.

In the 5th inning of game 2 of the 1917 series, faber tried to steal 3rd base while buck weaver was already on third. (He won the game anyway.) i mean, this makes rowand trying to score in game 2 against the angels seem like brain surgery.

faber threw out the first pitch of the 59 series.

his real first name is urban.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 12, 2005 11:20 PM CST up reply actions

well Spengler my friend

which I'd be honored to call you, it looks like this is our thread. It forced me to do some research I'd never had done. And I learned some Sox lore which makes me happy.

So I conclude two things.
1 Wilbur Wood should have made your poll.
2 Urban Red Faber is indeed the greatest Sox pitcher ever. I see no argument. I see no shame. I only see a great pitcher who aught to be on outfield wall.

So I wonder now, why not?

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Dec 13, 2005 11:20 PM CST reply actions

looks like it

has become just us in here. I'll go for that then:

Red Faber is the best Sox pitcher of all-time. If anyone had an objection, they've waived it.

Wilbur Wood should have been in the poll. I'll even add the Lamarr Hoyt probably shouldn't have been, but what the hell, I have fond memories of 83.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on Dec 14, 2005 1:04 AM CST up reply actions

no response

sorry that I haven't said much. I've said all I wanted to say in the original poll.

I will say that before this all occured, I knew little of past white sox pitchers.

AIM: shaftr01

blog

by shaftr on Dec 14, 2005 1:07 AM CST reply actions

hey I'm not that old

That I remember Red Faber. I knew next to nothing about the pre 70's White Sox. Which is why I was pushing Wilber Wood. I used to watch him on TV. I found out about Faber by looking through the list of White Sox hall of famers. I figured if there was a greatest anything to be found that was a good place to start.
BTW - He had the flue in 1918 which is why his Sox didn't turn black. If you remember your history that was the last big pandemic. He spent 1919 in the Navy during WWI and rejoined the Sox in 1920.

So why is this guy not on the outfield wall?

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on Dec 14, 2005 10:44 PM CST reply actions