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.