HOF releases pre-Integration ballot today.
 

HOF announced pre-integration ballot today...

NL MVPs Marty Marion and Bucky Walters, and former New York Yankees owner Jacob Ruppert are among 10 candidates on the ballot for the baseball Hall of Fame's pre-integration era committee.

Former players Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, Tony Mullane and Deacon White also are on the 10-man ballot, along with former St. Louis Cardinals owner Samuel Breadon, sporting goods executive Alfred Reach and umpire Hank O'Day.

Not sure if I would vote for anyone other than O'Day and Mullane...possibly Dahlen and Ferrell.

Joshua

I have long argued for Al Reach to be inducted. I think he could go toe to toe with Al Spalding. Just look at the resume!

"Born in London, Reach first attracted attention on Brooklyn baseball diamonds in the 1850s. In 1865, he was brought to Philadelphia for $25 a week "expenses," making him one of the earliest professionals. A second baseman, although by most accounts a lefthanded thrower, he was considered an excellent batter. In 1871, when Philadelphia won the first National Association championship, he hit .348. After retiring as a player, he was one of the founders of the Phillies and served as team president from 1883 to 1902. He later was part owner of the Athletics. A sporting-goods company he founded in the 1870s prospered and eventually made him millions. In 1889 he sold out to A.G. Spalding, although he continued in an executive position. An annual baseball guide that he began in the 1880s was instrumental in developing interest in baseball statistics."
http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballp...=Al_Reach_1840

I think that Mullane and White have the best chance of that group.

My choices would be O'Day and Deacon White. I think Deacon White should be a no brainer, but who knows how these knuckleheads will vote.

Here's a nomination for Nick the Lucky Dog on Maynard-Draper sporting goods...

The HOF is already seriously diluted. Now we need to go back and elect players who nobody in the first 75 years of voting ever gave serious consideration to?

Yes, Peter we do. Just because they didn't get it right earlier is no reason to say it shouldn't ever happen.

In that vein, there is one player (that I'm aware of, anyway -- there may be more) who hasn't been elected but who meets or exceeds every HOF criteria used by baseballreference.com: Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF standards, and HOF monitor. He isn't on the ballot. Who is he?

Kenny I am guessing it's some 19th century pitcher, I assume you aren't counting someone like Sosa or Palmeiro who might qualify too.

As to the other point, we just disagree, if you can't get in the first 10 or 15 times it seems to me there is probably a good reason not to let you in.

I used to hold that point of view, but I came to realization that a person's reputation is not static. A person's significance may not be recognized in their own time, but later generations may hold a different view. Harry Truman is a perfect example of this. He was not well regarded at the end of his presidency, but historians generally consider him far more significant today. This can certainly be said for some of those of the ballot today. Why did it take a William Hulbert so long to get elected?

Also, let's not forget the flipside of this argument. Just because someone was elected in 1940 doesn't mean that we would consider them today. We can all name several of the enshrined who would never get a moment of consideration today.

It took 75 years for Amos Rusie to get in and he won 30 games 4 years in a row.

Peter,

Well, using that logic. why do we need to wait 10 or 15 years? They certainly don't get better after they retire. How about 1 or 2 years? Then, for example, Dimaggio isn't a hall of famer. He got in on his third try. Five years? No Jimmy Foxx. 10 years? Kid Nichols and Harry Heilmann, among others, don't get in.

Is Dimaggio a HOFer? I would certainly argue that he meets the definition. But his stats sure didn't change during the two years he was shut out. Nor did the voter's perceptions of his abilities.

The problem with drawing lines is that, depending where drawn, some are barely in and others are barely out, although there is often very little difference between the two. Also, the lines keep getting re-drawn as perceptions concerning what a HOFer "is" change. I have no problem at all revisiting the issue. You are right, we simply do, and probably always will, disagree about that.

BTW, saying that the answer to my question is "some 19th century pitcher" is a cop out. You need to do better. I'm sure you can with a modicum of effort.

I think the slate of candidates is pretty weak, and I'm surprised because I think there are still several very strong candidates out there. They just didn't make the ballot. Like George Van Haltren, Bob Caruthers, and Carl Mays. I'd take any of them over Wes Ferrell and Bucky Walters.

OK Kenny I spent some time on baseball reference and it appears you may be thinking of Jim McCormick?

Peter,

You are correct. :)

Kenny

Jim McCormick, a name that will live in infamy, is undoubtedly a name that is oft remembered in Cleveland. I wouldn't know.

In a league where nearly half the runs were unearned, the significance of ERA would seem less important than fielding average.

McCormick was essentially the only pitcher in Cleveland for much of his career. I guess that's why they didn't shut him down a la Strasburg. He must have had a sore arm the year he lost 40 games.

I'm all for the Hall of Fame, but continuing to add eighteenth century players on the basis of statistics seems a bit irrelevant.

I hear that the Fiddler's Hall of Fame is adding Nero to this year's ballot.

It does seem that the election commitee is swirling the keg to find "just one more mug". McCormick's stats do not scream "HOF". A case could be made for his inclusion but realistically, calling him a .500 pitcher is more truth than a lie. A couple of gaudy single season stat lines do not make him a hall of famer. It is impressive to make 70-plus starts in a season in a season. Losing 40 games in a season is not. They were different times. Less was know about the long term wear and tear on a pitcher's arm. There was no data pool to dive in. Medicine was 20 years past Civil War limb amputations. Pitcher's developed "tired" arms and were finshed. That was it. If you were to adjust his numbers to reflect a 4 man rotation (let alone a five man)., he wouldn't have had more than 2 20 win seasons. Mr McCormick was a journeyman.

I have heard some of Nero's bootlegs. He WAS a "hot" picker....:D

I'm surprised Lefty O'Doul didn't get nominated. There are usually some pretty strong calls for him to get more consideration.

In today's world I think its absolutely necessary to continue to nominate 19th century and turn of the 20th century players. Everything about today is NOW NOW NOW. The reason the HOF has a veterans committee is to remember the players we didn't get to see. It's the same reason the HOF exists at all.

Kenny you're making a fallacious slippery slope argument. I never suggested drawing the line anyplace close to 1 or 2 years. My point is there comes a time (I could live with 15 years) when if someone hasn't got in or even come close, there's a reason for it. The reason people get in decades after the fact is some combination of dilution, misplaced nostalgia, and boredom.

Considering the 19th century guys played at a time when milestone numbers like 500 or 300 or 3000 didn't exist, I think it is worthwhile to consistently re-analyze their abilities in their time and their level of play compared to the players they played against. For a long time if you had 2,000 hits you were amongst an elite group of players. Now the number is 3,000. One day it may be 4,000 and those 3,000 hitters might not look so good. Does that mean they weren't HOFers?

Since 1901 or so 300 wins and 3000 hits have been pretty steady milestone numbers. 500 HR got devalued a bit in the steroid era, but I am guessing that reverts to being pretty meaningful too. We have had since 1939 to judge the 19th century guys, and we have had since the 1950s to judge players like Joe Gordon who for the life of me I can't understand as a Hall of Famer with his .268 average and 1500 or so hits. Enough!!

Peter--in Deacon White's first nine years in baseball he hit over .300 every year and, over those nine years, he struck out twenty-six times. He was one of the best defensive catchers in the league and, unlike most of the players of his time, a model citizen. He started playing in 1871, the first year of the National Association. Virtually none of the HOF voters ever saw him play while in his prime. I think he is more deserving of inclusion in the HOF than a lot of the current members. He is much more deserving than Tommy McCarthy, a fellow pre-1900 player.

Figures lie and liars figure ... Behind the numbers
 

The strike out numbers are meaningless. In 1874 Deacon didn't strike out once, but the team's pitcher Al Spalding pitched 617 innings and recorded only 31 strike outs. Wasn't pitching back then akin to slow pitch softball today, underhanded without heat. Deacon batted .301 that year, but his team's batting average was .312. Deacon also committed 70 errors that season, third highest on his team. You cannot convince me of the comparative relevance of statistics from the 1870s to the twentieth century game.

Apples and oranges I say. Deacon White would not be in my Hall of Fame, but that is not to say he wasn't a model citizen.

Peter,

I absolutely disagree with everything you just said. It isn't a slippery slope argument and a couple of years certainly would be as "fair" as are the current voting standards. Statistics don't get better after a player retires and voting on them quickly allows them to be voted on by people who saw them, who can place those statistics in context of the time in which the player played, and who can also judge them based upon criteria that don't necessarily show up in simple numbers. As I'm sure you are well aware, memories tend to fade. After a while, things that don't show up as numbers tend not to show up at all.

And yes, you do want to draw a line -- some time period (10 or 15 years is what you originally said) after which you have unilaterally determined that they have gotten enough of a "look" and don't need to be "looked at" anymore.

That is the problem with your analysis when it comes to guys like White, Mullane and Dahlen, to name a few. Dahlen last played 25 years before there was a HOF vote, and he was the last of the three I named to play. He really didn't get much of a "look" from anyone who saw him play at all, Yet he shouldn't get another look (under your analysis) because: 1) he didn't get the vote from people who didn't see him play when the voting first began; and 2) then didn't get in during the many years of Veteran's Committee cronyism because he played too early and therefore didn't have a crony on the committee to speak up for him? Now THAT is a fallacious argument and analysis.

We can't change the fact that most of the voters in the initial years didn't see guys like White, Mullane and Dahlen play. But, as sabremetrics increase our ability to view statistics in new (and hopefully better) ways, we can at least make up for that a little bit by re-visiting what those statistics mean in context. And, IMO, that should occur. BTW, were Dahlen, for example, to be elected, I would place him above 8 or 9 of the shortstops already in the Hall. He certainly wouldn't dilute the representation of shortstops in the Hall. If anything, he would bring the average up.

Peter, that's wrong.

For example, Sam Rice retired in 1934 with 2,987 hits. The reason? He didn't even know how many hits he had. 3,000 hits was not some special milestone at the time so there was no reason to play another season and shoot for it.

3,000 hits later became a special milestone, but that didn't happen until at least the late 1930's, maybe even the early '40's. Once people, particularly sports journalist types, started taking a harder look and those darned old statistics, the "milestones" began to become important. I suspect it is probably no coincidence that 3,000 hits as a milestone accomplishment occurred after the HOF opened and not before.

I'll grant you Dahlen was better than Joe Tinker and probably several other SSs, but the fact that many players already are in who shouldn't be is not, in my mind, a justification for letting in others just because they are comparable or better. The inevitable result of that logic would be extreme dilution. I'd rather have some inequalities than open the floodgates. I am sure Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Tommy John (to name a few) are better than pitchers already enshrined. Ken Boyer was probably as good as Santo, or if not, better than some 3B already in. You could probably name a host of guys who were, in context, better than Schoendienst, Kell, Mazeroski, Gordon, not to mention all the undeserving 30s players that Frankie Frisch pushed through. Let em all in?

Sam Crawford probably could have stuck around too, but you are missing my larger point, which was to respond to the poster who said that you can't use statistics to compare eras because today's 3000 hits could be tomorrow's 4000. My point was only that 3000 since 1901 generally reflects the same level of accomplishment as 3000 now.

But it doesn't. You are wrong about that too.

I don't know. If you give me a name, then we can start to discuss them "in context." But I wouldn't have a problem if Ken Boyer was elected at all. Or Kaat. Or Tiant. Tommy John I would have to give some serious consideration to before I could make a decision.

Well we can start with ones that come up all the time: Hodges, Garvey, Oliva, Munson, Maris.

Absolutely support Hodges and Oliva. On the fence about Garvey. I see the argument for Munson and Maris but remain unconvinced thus far.

It's surprising, in light of Hodges' impressive career stats, that he does so poorly on baseball reference. Bill James ranks him only #30 among first basemen, too.


Black Ink

Batting - 2 (604), Average HOFer ≈ 27




Gray Ink

Batting - 128 (140), Average HOFer ≈ 144




Hall of Fame Monitor

Batting - 83 (225), Likely HOFer ≈ 100




Hall of Fame Standards

Batting - 32 (272), Average HOFer ≈ 50

I give Hodges credit for his awesome fielding, and some more credit for his management of the Mets. He died early, was never a self-promoter while alive, and faded from the spotlight long ago. But he was probably one of, if not the, most admired and respected ballplayers, by other ballplayers, of his time.

Garvey also fares poorly, to my surprise as he surely was for quite a few years one of the best players in the game.


Black Ink

Batting - 12 (199), Average HOFer ≈ 27




Gray Ink

Batting - 142 (112), Average HOFer ≈ 144




Hall of Fame Monitor

Batting - 130 (106), Likely HOFer ≈ 100




Hall of Fame Standards

Batting - 32 (281), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Peter, your vision of early baseball, circa 1870s, is flawed. Many pitchers were finding success by throwing as hard as they could muster, often side-arm or even slightly overhand (pitchers constantly pushed the envelope and would use as high an arm angle as the umps would allow). Pitchers were starting to throw curve balls (Candy Cummings), try that without significant pitch speed. Granted, Deacon did catch a fair number of Spaldings games and he was a softer thrower but he then became a pioneer by catching close behind the batter to keep runners from advancing on base. This led to more errors but ultimately reduced the number of runs the opposing team would score. Moving up close behind the batter was a dangerous proposition.

Deacon White was considered the best catcher of the 1870s, a decade in which catching was deemed the most valuable position on the field. His defensive skills alone made him extremely valuable and he improved his worth by being amongst League leaders in many offensive categories as well.

Deacon has everything going for him. Solid play during the 1870s, catching more games than anyone (catching put many promising careers to bed early). He then re-invented himself and played another decade at 3rd base with enough success for James to rank him among the 100 best at that position.

Deacon White is a clear stand-out for me and many others. I would recommend the book "Cather - How the Man Behind the Plate Became an American Folk Hero" by Peter Morris. This book has helped many people understand the brillance of Deacon White's play during the 1870s.

I got an email from SABR this week with news about a new book which rates baseball stars as to whether they are HOF worthy. The book, interestingly enough, reviews six of the players who are on the ballot. Here are the reviews of Tony Mullane and Deacon White:


Tony Mullane ranks 57th all-time among starting pitchers in Hall of Fame points. For that and being the greatest pitcher in American Association (as a major league) history, he is certainly a Hall of Famer.



Deacon White ranks 34th all-time among hitters, including 27th in career production and 18th in peak seasons production thanks to the schedule adjustment made to level the playing field between 19th Century players who played in short seasons and those playing in longer seasons. White absolutely is a Hall of Famer.

Hopefully the HOF voters do their homework and elect these two worthy candidates.

Too bad there isn't a write in candidate. I would vote for Bob Johnson.

Dahlen
 

I don't think that putting in Bill Dahlen would be diluting the Hall of Fame at all. If you look at his top ten career comparables, 7 are in the HOF:

George Davis
Bid McPhee
Bobby Wallace
Luke Appling
Luis Aparicio
Ozzie Smith
Frankie Frisch

and you could make a decent case for Herman Long, Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel

I take issue with the argument that if 19th-century players have not gotten in by now, they don't belong in the HOF for a number of reasons.

I will limit myself to one reason for now: we know much more about the early game now than we did even five or ten years ago. There is a vast amount of information from the 19th century that has only become widely-available in the last five years or so through online newspaper and genealogy databases, and there are a number of relatively new key resources for the researcher/reader/writer of 19th-century baseball (the journal Base Ball: A Journal of the Early Game, work done by Peter Morris, work done by members of SABR's 19th-century committee, to give examples). Thus, we have a better idea of how early players stacked up in their time.

Through this relatively newfound information has come the revelation that there are worthy players who have been left out. Doesn't this make perfect sense?

Charles

Last thing we need is more cricket players in the Hall.:D:D

“It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.”

I would vote for Deacon White if I had the vote, but not this year and I'll give a good reason. He is the last Pirates(Alleghenys) player I need for my Pittsburgh Old Judge team set. He gets in the HOF, his prices will skyrocket immediately. I would elect Hank O'Day and the reason for that is because I have his Old Judge card, which I would then gladly trade for a Deacon White!

Lol. Good one, Jay.

Steve, most of those in your list (if not all), are on the low side of HOF credentials; thus, if Dahlen ranks with them, his addition would indeed be diluting the HOF.

+1 on the Joe Gordon comment. If you play on the Yankees, your statistics are the variable in an algebraic expression and the multiplier is 2. It's maddening, confusing, and just plain stupid.

Thanks for bumping the thread Jay. Here is the book you referenced (I've ordered my copy).

Auditioning for Cooperstown: Rating Baseball's Stars for the Hall of Fame
Andre Lower

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/061...ls_o00_s00_i00

I've been hopeful for Deacon White for many years, I'm hoping his time has come although I'd love to pick up more of his items at non-HOFer prices.

O'day, Ruppert and Deacon White just made the Hall! Wish I got that Deacon White card I need for my Pirates Old Judge set(last card!) before today. The price on him and O'Day just skyrocketed if Bid McPhee set any precedent.

BTW, My GD condition O'Day can be had for an authentic Deacon White or a bazillion dollars! :) Serious on the first part

I really dont see a huge increase (long term) happening for any of these guys cards. White's Old Judge card was already so rare and valuable that it will go up, but it was pricey before. O'Day is a common OJ to find so it will go up, maybe double, but not a huge increase. As for autographs, O'Day and White were so scarce to begin with it really wasn't a possibility to get one and Ruppert is SO common I cant imagine his signature doing much, maybe a 20% increase. O'Day and White would sell for a ton, dont get me wrong, but its not like any one of us could have gone out and purchased these on the open market. I have what believe to be an O'Day signature, but in 20+ years I have only seen one other on Jodi's baseball that sold in Guttierez auction about 7 years ago. I know of ONE Deacon White and its worth 100k probably, but its locked up tight in a collection anyways.

All in all, its a pretty anti-climactic end to an exciting group of possibilities in my opinion.

Rhys

I think the Scrapps Deacon White will see a pretty good jump in price, because that is what the "average" HOF collector will have the best chance at getting, which will lead to some bidding wars for a while. An OJ Deacon White is going to be a very pricy card if one ever gets on the market.

I agree that long-term they won't have a huge increase, but short-term the first ones to auction will do strong numbers because you have people trying to fill new holes in collections. McPhee cards went for more right after he got elected than they do now, so even he leveled out. There are plenty of HOF'ers in the set more common than O'Day so I think the first few cards will be 3-4x the price, then they will level out to regular HOF prices for the set.

White cards already did go for more and from someone trying to get one for years to complete my Pirates set, he is very hard to find. If I could give anyone financial advice, if you're not married to the idea of owning a Deacon White card, put it up for auction before someone else does and watch the price. I can guarantee that while I'll bid a lot, it won't be me winning it at the price it will end at.