SABR "2010 Overlooked 19C BB Legend" Vote Results

[Joe_G.]

For the second year in a row, the SABR 19th Century Committee has voted on the most deserving 19th Century "Legend" not already enshrined in the BB HOF. Last year was a near tie between Pete Browning and Deacon White, each far out-pacing the others with Browning getting the nod. Ten Legends were again selected for this year's ballot, seven returning from last year and three new candidates. The 2010 results are as follows:

Deacon White 418 points
Bill Dahlen 339 points
Harry Stovey 303 points
Ross Barnes 285 points
Tony Mullane 278 points
Bob Caruthers 200 points
Jack Glasscock 194 points
Doc Adams 188 points
George Van Haltren 145 points
Bobby Mathews 119 points

FWIW, research material was made available and summarized in biographies for each candidate which made for some interesting reading.

As some of you may recall, I've always put in a good word for Deacon White whenever the topic of deserving HOFers surfaces. So I, for one, was glad to see this result. Now I don't expect to see a 19th century Legend enshrined anytime soon, but if and when the HOF voters get serious about adding some of the games most deserving players, perhaps Deacon White (& Pete Browning) will get the recognition they deserve.

[rhettyeakley]

Deacon White 418 points
Bill Dahlen 339 points
Harry Stovey 303 points
Ross Barnes 285 points
Tony Mullane 278 points

Interesting to see Dahlen get that much respect. I would have put all 4 of the other guys in the top 5 above Dahlen w/o a doubt, but overall a nice list of players.

[Misunderestimated]

I believe that Dahlen and White are the only ones formally being considered by the relevant HOF's veteran's subcommittee -- 19th century player and later umpire Hank O'Day is also on the ballot right now (but as an Ump-- he wasn't much of a player anyway)

[barrysloate]

I voted for Stovey, who finished third. But as I recall I wrote in Jim Creighton and he didn't even crack the top ten. I think to an extent he is a forgotten baseball hero.

[GaryPassamonte]

The only "superstars of their time" on that list are Barnes and Stovey. They also are the players on the list that received the most votes in the initial HOF election of 1936, 3 for Barnes and 6 for Stovey. White received 1 vote in 1936 and last year's winner, Browning, received 0 votes. Many of the people that voted in 1936 had seen all of them play. Today's voters can't claim the same first hand perspective.

[JasonL]

as to how difficult it is to elect anyone from any era, is the fact that last year's leading vote getter (Browning) did not place anywhere in the list you posted this year!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The only "superstars of their time" on that list are Barnes and Stovey. They also are the players on the list that received the most votes in the initial HOF election of 1936, 3 for Barnes and 6 for Stovey. White received 1 vote in 1936 and last year's winner, Browning, received 0 votes. Many of the people that voted in 1936 had seen all of them play. Today's voters can't claim the same first hand perspective.

That's an important point - it's the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Great." Statistics certainly play a role in determining admission, but the popularity of the player is often left out of many of these discussions when it is a relevant factor.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jason- Browning was not included in this year's voting. Each year's winner is no longer in the mix.

[kkkkandp]

I am just as surprised at the poor showing by George Van Haltren. He is on many of the "best players not already in the Hall of Fame" lists and his statistics are certainly comparable to Dahlen's.

While Browning had an outstanding average, his totals are substantially lower than both Dahlen's and Van Haltren's and Browning's career was basically over at 32. I think he gets a lot of attention simply due to the "Louisville Slugger" connction as well as his colorful lifestyle.

[oldjudge]

I concur that Browning was the class of the list. The arguement against him was that he excelled in a weaker league (the American Association). However, in 1890, while competing with the stars of the National League in the Player's League, he led the league in hitting.
I would like to see Dummy Hoy and Dave Orr on that list also. Personally, I think Browning, White, Hoy, Orr, Stovey, Caruthers and Van Haltren all belong in the HOF. You can take McCarthy and Maz out for starters to make room.

[Joe_G.]

Point / Counter Point . . .

Here are a couple thoughts for your consideration. By 1936, the biggest issue facing Deacon White and many of the other 19th century greats was that they were forgotten. While Deacon White did play until 1890, his most impressive years, the years in which he clearly distanced himself from all others, spanned from the late 1860s through 1879 (his catching days). Most voters in 1936 had no memory of Deacon in his heyday unless they themselves were approaching 80+ years of age. I suspect very few of the voter’s fathers even remembered much about Deacon White. Before his death in 1939, Deacon White was the oldest major leaguer in the land, he had out-lived his contemporaries.

The more recent probing studies bring to light just how significant Deacon White was to the game of baseball. Recent books like “Catcher: How the Man Behind the Plate Became an American Folk Hero” by Peter Morris explain in great detail how important the catcher’s role was through the decades. In the 1870s, the catcher was deemed the most important position in baseball, a status it would never again attain. If you were the most skilled player on an 1870s nine and you were a truly brave soul, you just might make a successful catcher. The team with the best catcher typically won regardless of who might be pitching, hitting, etc. The games best pitchers needed equally capable catchers or they would flounder. The danger of catching was never higher than the 1870s when pitch speeds were on the rise, new pitches debuted such as the curve ball, and the dangerous proposition of playing right behind the batter when runners were aboard (a tactic Deacon White is credited with introducing). All this without safety equipment to protect against foul tips as would become popular (and necessary) by the 1880s and beyond. Deacon White was the gold standard, the best aspired to play like him. Deacon caught masterfully and did so for more games than anyone else in the 1870s.

Beyond his catching abilities, Deacon was also a feared hitter, often posting best or near-best numbers for his position, sometimes leading the whole league in BA, hits, RBIs, etc. Deacon White then re-invented himself as a 3rd baseman for the second half of his career (catching more games than anyone else in the 1870s did take its toll). If you dismiss his hero status of the 1870s and wipe the slate clean, Deacon was still impressive (Bill James ranks him as 76th best 3rd baseman of all time). Even when he became the oldest man in the league in 1887, he batted better than league average, heck better than the Wolverines league leading team average.

One should also note that Championships seemed to follow him around. Of course being part of two different "Big 4" moves didn't hurt. Spalding and others often wrote about his catching abilities together with his leadership on and off the field, his virtuous ways responsible for his nickname, the Deacon.

Lastly, I know N172 pose counts mean next to nothing, but it is somewhat suspicious to at least me that Deacon White was issued 9 poses when the next highest pose count for any Detroit player is 5 (Deacon White with 9, 19 other players with 5 or less). To spice up this thread and give Deacon a little love, I will post copies of all 9 poses in Studio Proof format (5 here, 4 in the next).

[Joe_G.]

Anyone else have some love for Deacon White to share ??

[Hankphenom]

Nick Young:

President, NL, 1885-1902
Sec/Treas, NL, 1876-1885
Organized National Association, 1871
Manager, 1860s/70s
Player, 1850s-60s

Major influence during the entire period that saw baseball move from the amateur "gentleman's game" to undisputed major league status as America's National Pastime.

[Joe_G.]

Thanks for the bump Hank. I have nothing to add on Nick Young but will take the opportunity to clarify that I do not own the cards I posted, those hit the market back in 2006 (Hunt Auction).

Anyone going to challenge my post? I'll take a "no reply" as support for Deacon White as most deserving (together with Pete Browning) .

[milkit1]

Jim McCormick wasnt even mentioned?

[GaryPassamonte]

Joe, I'll play devil's advocate on the Deacon White case. Although White was a very good player for many years, he was not great. During a 20 year career, he rarely was a league leader in either offensive or defensive categories. White's strength lies in his longevity. He built a solid career, but HOF, I'm not sure. As I stated in a prior post, White received only 1 vote in 1936 and wasn't even a suggested candidate on the ballot. He was more of a write in choice. In 1936 he was no more forgotten than any other 19th century player, so he was considered on an equal basis with the other players.
Now, my Ross Barnes plug. His career follows a path almost the opposite of White. He was the star of professional baseball from 1871-1876 and a great player. He was a league leader in almost every category. There is no disputing this. Yet, his career was soon over and he was out of baseball by age 31. In the 1936 HOF election, Barnes was a suggested candidate and received 3 votes.
We can debate whether HOF election should reward short term greatness over long term consistency all day, but in many HOF discussions on this board we usually prefer to remove the Mazeroskis and Suttons more than the Koufaxs and Josses. White's credentials are similar to Sutton's and Barnes's are similar to Koufax's. Long term consistency versus short term greatness. What's your preference?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm surprised that Deacon's brother, Will White, was not mentioned in the vote. I understand that Deacon had a far longer and more pioneering career, but Will was a great talent in his own right.

I would also have enjoyed seeing more votes for Tony Mullane. Will White, Mullane and O'Day would be my three choices for HOF enshrinement.

[Joe_G.]

Great hearing other arguments. And you Gary, you are sticking up for another one of my favorites in Ross Barnes. If I had to pick one of the two, however, I would go with Deacon White even if we only compared the two players during the nine seasons Barnes played.

Ross Barnes had some great years over his short career enjoying 3 batting titles over nine seasons. During those same baseball seasons Deacon White likewise had some good years, leading the league twice in batting average. 1876 was perhaps Barnes best, but injury and banning of the fair-foul hit would never allow him to return to his previous glory. For his career, Barnes would hit .3597 to Deacon Whites .3442 (again, comparing the same seasons). During this stretch, Deacon White actually played more which is no small feat for an 1870s catcher. A closer look at Deacon's stats show he hit best when he caught the least. In 1877 (the only season in which he didn't play most of his games catching), he led the league with a .387 BA. Had Deacon White played another position during his prime, his offensive numbers would have been more impressive. However, playing another position would have diminished Deacon's greatness for he was the game’s best catcher at a time when catching was critical to a team's success. Unfortunately, it is hard to demonstrate Deacon's defensive greatness with stats. He played the position like no other, often with higher risk than others dared (playing right behind the batter to keep runners from advancing). At times this would lead to more errors, but Deacon still averaged well under an error/game caught (remarkable considering). Personally, I'd like to see both in the HOF, but if I had to pick one, I would vote in Deacon White for his 1870s catching dominance. Add to it his offensive numbers and longevity at another position and I don't see anyone more deserving of enshrinement.

By 1936, the voters certainly didn't recall the game as it was played in the 1870s. Unfortunate for Deacon, they far more likely remembered the farce catching became during the 1890s. By then, catching was considered the place you'd stick your least talented player. Throw a couple pillows on your largest poor lug and ask him to stand in the way of every pitch. As iconic as catching was in the 1870s, it disappeared during the 1880s until by 1890 it was often made a mockery of.

[insidethewrapper]

Most historians list Deacon White as a 3rd baseman. He only played 458 games at catcher in his long career ( 29%) of his games played.
Ewing , I think the only HOF catcher (?) from the 19th Century ,played only 48% of his games at catcher !!!!
After reading a lot of 19th Century newspapers,The best catcher, in my opinion, (who was really a catcher in the 19th century) was Charlie Bennett. He played 954 games out of 1062 as catcher (89.8%).
Faber ratings have Bennett ranked 4th as catcher, behind others who only played catcher part time. I see Deacon White was ranked 6th on the 3rd baseman list according to his ranking. Good discussion.

I can't believe only 1 catcher from the 19th Century should be in the Hall of Fame and that he only catch 48% of the time.

Let's get a true catcher in the HOF from the 19th Century!!!

[oldjudge]

My list, in order of preference. The first three on the list are, in my mind, no question deserving. BTW, I think there are about 10 19th century players who deserve a spot in the HOF and I hope the veterans committee takes a careful look at them;

1. Pete Browning
2. Harry Stovey
3. Deacon White
4. Dave Orr-stroke cut career short after 8 seasons but check his record out
5. Ross Barnes
6. Dummy Hoy

[rhettyeakley]

All of the guys being mentioned are great candidates but for my money the guy that needs to get in is Tony Mullane. He was a 30+ game winner every season from 1882-1887, except 1885 when he was "suspended" for the entire season by the American Association for completely underhanded reasons.

Had he played even to 50% of his ability through that season he would have ended with 300+ wins (instead of the 284 he currently has) and would already be a HOFer. IMO it is a total joke that he didn't get in instead of his teammate Bid McPhee. There has been a distinct bias against AA players (for the same reason Jay mentioned earlier with Browning) for way too long.
-Rhett

[GaryPassamonte]

I believe I have said this before, but wouldn't it be nice if the HOF assembled a pioneer committee truly versed in the 19th century game and inducted a group from this era. A few years ago this was done with Negro League players.
This idea may gain some momentum in the near future as players tainted by the steroid era come up for election. The HOF will have 3 choices to ensure they will have inductees every year. I'm sure there is no desire for a year in which no one is inducted. 1. Admit HOF caliber players sullied by steroids, 2. Not admit HOF type steroid players and, instead, induct weak candidates to ensure there is an induction ceremony, or 3. encourage more inductees through the veteran's committee or some other special committee such as a 19th century committee. What do you think?