Hall of Fame voting and WWII

[G1911]

I would argue that the Hall has actually done a pretty good job handling WWII (though they have not handled plenty of other things well).

Travis is the most glaring example of a career ruined by WWII, but unlike most of the others, this is more because it ruined his career entirely, instead of just missing X number of years. I'm not sure I would vote for someone, based on a projection of what they might have done if something that did happen did not actually happen, but I sure wouldn't be opposed to giving him a plaque. It becomes a slippery slope to me. What if Herb Score wasn't injured? He projected to have some great seasons.


I don't think anyone else who missed time really looks like a hall of famer, even giving them credit for those years and assuming they would have played at a very high level. Dom Dimmaggio's career is still short, and his extremely low OPS+ (by a hall of fame standard) doesn't indicate he was really all that great of a batter, which is his key. I don't think Dom would be in the conversation if his last name was different.


I think Rizzuto is a lower-quality Hall of Famer, but he was elected more for defense, not offense. His detractors make too much of his batting average and not enough of his glove. His supporters make too much of the fact that he wore Yankee pinstripes and was popular. Bill James, a detractor of Rizzuto's for a long time, ran a statistical study in the Historical Baseball Abstract from 2001, that concluded that Rizzuto was the greatest SS at turning the double play in baseball history. Obviously this is one statistical study, projecting what the expected double plays for a team would be and comparing to what they actually did, I don't recall all the details. Defensive statistics remain weak, and it does seem to have been the opinion at the time that he was a truly elite level defensive player at the second-most important defensive position. I can see the argument here, though I still think he rates pretty low on the Hall of Fame scale, but I don't think he was a truly terrible selection. If Al Dark was a Yankee and Rizzuto played for the A's, it's pretty clear who would be in the hall of fame.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by G1911

I would argue that the Hall has actually done a pretty good job handling WWII (though they have not handled plenty of other things well).

Travis is the most glaring example of a career ruined by WWII, but unlike most of the others, this is more because it ruined his career entirely, instead of just missing X number of years. I'm not sure I would vote for someone, based on a projection of what they might have done if something that did happen did not actually happen, but I sure wouldn't be opposed to giving him a plaque. It becomes a slippery slope to me. What if Herb Score wasn't injured? He projected to have some great seasons.


I don't think anyone else who missed time really looks like a hall of famer, even giving them credit for those years and assuming they would have played at a very high level. Dom Dimmaggio's career is still short, and his extremely low OPS+ (by a hall of fame standard) doesn't indicate he was really all that great of a batter, which is his key. I don't think Dom would be in the conversation if his last name was different.


I think Rizzuto is a lower-quality Hall of Famer, but he was elected more for defense, not offense. His detractors make too much of his batting average and not enough of his glove. His supporters make too much of the fact that he wore Yankee pinstripes and was popular. Bill James, a detractor of Rizzuto's for a long time, ran a statistical study in the Historical Baseball Abstract from 2001, that concluded that Rizzuto was the greatest SS at turning the double play in baseball history. Obviously this is one statistical study, projecting what the expected double plays for a team would be and comparing to what they actually did, I don't recall all the details. Defensive statistics remain weak, and it does seem to have been the opinion at the time that he was a truly elite level defensive player at the second-most important defensive position. I can see the argument here, though I still think he rates pretty low on the Hall of Fame scale, but I don't think he was a truly terrible selection. If Al Dark was a Yankee and Rizzuto played for the A's, it's pretty clear who would be in the hall of fame.

I would argue (and have done so) that being hurt playing baseball is completely different than being hurt serving your country. On the one hand, playing baseball is entirely voluntary. Being drafted into the service for WWII was not. Being hurt playing in the profession you chose is substantially different, IMO, than being hurt doing something that you had no choice other than to do. As I understand it, Travis never resented having his career ruined by being drafted, which is true of most of the greatest generation. But the fact remains that he did, as a result of events over which he had no choice.

Herb Score had great projections until he got hurt doing what he had chosen to do. Cecil Travis had great projections until he was hurt doing what he was required to do by his country. To my way of thinking, there is a significant difference between the two, and it really bothers me that he gets next to no recognition for the sacrifice that he made. There really isn't any slippery slope in my estimation, because he is the only potentially HOF worthy candidate I can think of who had to make that sacrifice.

[bigfanNY]

Great subject I would be very happy if the Hall of Fame recognized every Major Leauge player who served in any branch of the service during War time.

[riggs336]

Since we're talking HOF and WWII, I thought I'd mention Hal Newhouser. No question he was a fine pitcher but he did compile 80 of his 207 wins in 1944, 45 and 46.
I won't weigh in on Scooter, but if we're looking for a HOF SS we could start with Bill Dahlen. His 75.4 WAR ranks seventh among all shortstops and he's tenth all-time in JAWS.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by riggs336

Since we're talking HOF and WWII, I thought I'd mention Hal Newhouser. No question he was a fine pitcher but he did compile 80 of his 207 wins in 1944, 45 and 46.
I won't weigh in on Scooter, but if we're looking for a HOF SS we could start with Bill Dahlen. His 75.4 WAR ranks seventh among all shortstops and he's tenth all-time in JAWS.

Agree. He should have been elected long ago. And he is not the only one from that era, IMO.

[triwak]

Originally Posted by riggs336

Since we're talking HOF and WWII, I thought I'd mention Hal Newhouser. No question he was a fine pitcher but he did compile 80 of his 207 wins in 1944, 45 and 46.
I won't weigh in on Scooter, but if we're looking for a HOF SS we could start with Bill Dahlen. His 75.4 WAR ranks seventh among all shortstops and he's tenth all-time in JAWS.

Pulling for Dahlen in next year's Era's Committee vote. He came up only one vote short a few years ago. Declined a bit, the next time. We shall see...

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I would argue (and have done so) that being hurt playing baseball is completely different than being hurt serving your country. On the one hand, playing baseball is entirely voluntary. Being drafted into the service for WWII was not. Being hurt playing in the profession you chose is substantially different, IMO, than being hurt doing something that you had no choice other than to do. As I understand it, Travis never resented having his career ruined by being drafted, which is true of most of the greatest generation. But the fact remains that he did, as a result of events over which he had no choice.

Herb Score had great projections until he got hurt doing what he had chosen to do. Cecil Travis had great projections until he was hurt doing what he was required to do by his country. To my way of thinking, there is a significant difference between the two, and it really bothers me that he gets next to no recognition for the sacrifice that he made. There really isn't any slippery slope in my estimation, because he is the only potentially HOF worthy candidate I can think of who had to make that sacrifice.

I think this my biggest objection is that it's not a numbers argument or an argument based on things that actually happened for his hall of fame case. Serving in WWII is admirable, more admirable than having a hall of fame baseball career. I'm not sure that means we should ignore what actually did happen and credit him with a purely theoretical career.

Travis had a WAR of 29.8 and an OPS+ of 108, 8% percent better than the league. He had 2 seasons with a 120 OPS+, 1940 (120 exact), and 1941 (a fantastic season, 154). Travis was, by OPS, a league average bat from 1934-1936. He was pretty good in 1937-1938, was slightly below league average in 1939, very good in 1940 and had a fantastic year in 1941. He never came back the same from the war and was done after, for the reasons mentioned by others earlier.

His best stat is his high battering average in an era where batting averages were very very high. Nothing else stands out, and he only had one excellent season looking at his numbers in context with the league he played in.

To get Travis to a hall of fame career, we have to assume that it was that season that was how he was going to produce, not any that came before, and then grant him not just 3 more excellent years during the war but a couple more after that as well. It seems as likely to me that he would not have continued this high level of play for several more years, as it is that he would. I think it is pretty safe to assume that Ted Williams, Johnny Mize and Stan Musial would have continued to crush the league during the war years, because they had a long track record of doing exactly that over the years he did play in Major League Baseball. Travis, looking at the numbers, did not.


The more I look at it, the more it seems clear this is a pretty shaky series of assumptions to make, if one even accepts the prerequisite argument that we can elect someone for a theoretical accomplishment that did not happen in actual fact. Travis would, I think, be the first player elected for things that did not actually happen in the real world. I don't think this is a good idea, because it opens the Hall to any number of "What if?" scenario's as well as awarding a player for theoretical achievements. In fact, he had 1 Hall of Fame level season.

[packs]

I could not disagree more. You're talking about years when Travis was 19 to 22 years old. Those are years a lot of people are still in the minor leagues.

From age 23 to 27, his career peak, he hit 332 and his OPS+ rose every year with the exception of his age 25 season. He also began to receive MVP votes in 4 of those 5 seasons, finishing 6th the year before he entered the service.

You have to make a decision when it comes to Travis and what his war injury meant to his career. It either derailed a HOF career or it didn't. It doesn't make much sense to debate what he did while he was 19 to 22 years old.

[rats60]

Travis still only had 1 season of OPS+ of more than 120. During those first 9 years, Arky Vaughan had an OPS + of 133 or more 8 of 9 seasons, 119 in the 9th, with a high of 190. Joe Cronin had an OPS+ over 120 8 of 12 seasons 1930-41. Luke Appling had 3 seasons of OPS+ over 120 before the war and 3 more after. You can't put a guy in the HOF based on 1 quality season. It is unfortunate he lost the chance to do more 1942-1945, but we can't assume those years would be like 1941 instead of 1933-1940.

https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/4d5ab420

Travis developed frostbite to two toes of his left foot and spent time in a hospital in Metz, France, before rejoining his unit. Onaway Division pursued Hitler's army on into Germany and, following the surrender of Germany in May 1945, remained as part of the occupying forces. Travis managed a baseball team for the 76th that participated in a European Theater tournament.

He was training for reassignment to the Pacific Theater when the Japanese surrendered, ending the war.

Frost bite on 2 toes, not threatening both feet. After he was able to go back to military service after.

"I was a good player, but I wasn't a great one,"

Travis didn't consider himself a HOFer. He never received a HOF vote.

http://baseballegg.com/2017/09/06/th...-cecil-travis/

“My problem when I got back to baseball was my timing,” said Travis, who batted .252 in 1946, “I could never seem to get it back the way it was after laying out so long.”

Travis' war injury wasn't the main reason for his decline.

bigfanNY Great subject I would be very happy if the Hall of Fame recognized every Major Leauge player who served in any branch of the service during War time.

I agree with this. In particular those that served in the war theater like Travis.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

Travis still only had 1 season of OPS+ of more than 120. During those first 9 years, Arky Vaughan had an OPS + of 133 or more 8 of 9 seasons, 119 in the 9th, with a high of 190. Joe Cronin had an OPS+ over 120 8 of 12 seasons 1930-41. Luke Appling had 3 seasons of OPS+ over 120 before the war and 3 more after. You can't put a guy in the HOF based on 1 quality season.

Is that true, though? How do you explain Dizzy Dean's inclusion? Is he in for any other reason than winning 30 games once? I know he led the league in strike outs 4 times, but Sam McDowell did him one better at 5 times and he's not in the HOF. He didn't win 30 games either. Or how about old Hack Wilson?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by packs

Is that true, though? How do you explain Dizzy Dean's inclusion? Is he in for any other reason than winning 30 games once? I know he led the league in strike outs 4 times, but Sam McDowell did him one better at 5 times and he's not in the HOF. He didn't win 30 games either. Or how about old Hack Wilson?

Dean won a MVP Award and was 2nd twice. I know you don't like WAR but he was top 4 in WAR for pitchers for 6 consecutive seasons. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th ERA, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 4th Wins, 1st, 4th, 4th W-L%, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 10th WHIP, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th K/9, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd IP, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 8th Ks, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 8th, 8th CG, 1st, 1st, 4th, 6th Shutouts. Dean's adjusted ERA is 131, 42nd all time better than Carl Hubbell, Bob Gibson, Tom Seaver and many other HOF Pitchers. He had at a minimum 6 HOF quality seasons.

Hack Wilson has a career OPS+ 144, 48th all time, including 7 seasons of OPS+ of at least 129 (6 of at least 140) with a high 177. He had at least 6 HOF quality seasons.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

I could not disagree more. You're talking about years when Travis was 19 to 22 years old. Those are years a lot of people are still in the minor leagues.

From age 23 to 27, his career peak, he hit 332 and his OPS+ rose every year with the exception of his age 25 season. He also began to receive MVP votes in 4 of those 5 seasons, finishing 6th the year before he entered the service.

You have to make a decision when it comes to Travis and what his war injury meant to his career. It either derailed a HOF career or it didn't. It doesn't make much sense to debate what he did while he was 19 to 22 years old.

You would have a point if I did focus on his age 19-22 seasons. However, that is clearly false if you read what I wrote. I included all of his career and broke them into groups based on OPS+, a pretty normal standard to evaluate contextual offensive production, as Travis was not an elite defender and his hall of fame case is based on a theory that his ONLY hall of fame season is the player he truly was.

You say his OPS+ rose every year from age 23 to 27, except age 25. This is true, but only one of them was a hall of fame season. He posted OPS+'s of 113, 116, 95, 120, 154. 113-120 is pretty good, but it is not a hall of fame level season, or really close to it. He had one elite level season at age 27.

To get Travis to the hall you have to make 2 assumptions, 1) a player can be a hall of Famer for things that did not actually happen in the real world and 2) His 1941 season defines his theoretical career, and all of his other 11 years in Major League Baseball do not. I do not think the first is a logical one to make, for the reasons stated earlier, and the second does not seem to me to be a very good one either, as it relies on ignoring quite a bit of reality to create an alternate career in which only his best exists.