Let's talk about Hall of Fame candidates who have been "neglected"

[Ricky]

Originally Posted by cammb

Vada Pinson was every bit as good as Clemente

This is a hot take!

[bbcard1]

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

Any love for Bobby Mathews and his 297 wins? many eras of baseball. Three more and it would not have been a discussion. He was done by 1900 and has a terribly forgettable name. He probably didn't stack up against the best of his era, but he sure racked up a lot of stats, though the teams he played on were wonky. Once netted 625 innings in a single season.

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

[YazFenway08]

It is possible than cammb and I are now friends....

[Mozzie22]

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

[Mike D.]

Originally Posted by Mozzie22

Don Mattingly and Kirby Puckett have nearly identical numbers and at no time ever did anyone say Puckett was the best player in the game. Mattingly was the best player in the game for a period in the 80's.

Mattingly should be in.

Puckett finished top 3 in the MVP voting, top 10 4 other times. That’s 7 top 10 finishes in a 12 year career.

Mattingly had 2 top 3 finishes, 4 total top 10.

[Mike D.]

Wow…talk about different time. Mattingly had over 7,700 plate appearances…and struck out fewer than 450 times!

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

Mathews was an excellent pitcher for a number of years. His career totals helps illustrate the folly of comparing players across the many eras of baseball. Although seasons were shorter in the 19th century, starting pitchers simply pitched more games than they would into the 20th century and beyond. Getting 300 wins, like hitting .400, was easier in the 19th century than later years. On the other hand, hitting home runs was infinitely more difficult and not really a part of the style of baseball played back then. My point is that when evaluating players, using benchmarks is folly. The best way to evaluate any player is by viewing his record compared to his peers.
This assures an apples to apples comparison. This is not to say Mathews is not a hofer. I have no problem with his worthiness.

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

[Phil Arem]

How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Phil Arem

How about Keith Hernandez? 11 Gold gloves, close to 300BA, mvp, batting title, clutch hitter and 2 rings. Not to mention a hilarious announcer!

If you like Keith Hernandez, then John Olerud goes in. Dead serious.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by bbcard1

An issue he has, generic name aside, is that he died before the turn of the century and was probably largely forgotten by the time of the first HOF class.

I agree and this issue pertains to many 19th century players. As I said in my original post on this thread, 19th century players, more specifically pioneer players are underrepresented in the HOF. This will never be changed unless baseball historians/SABRites have a majority voice on the Historical Overview Committee and the final Election Committee. SABR's 19th Century Committee has chosen the Most Overlooked 19th Century Legend for the past 13 years. Only Deacon White has been elected to the HOF from this group. This shows you how well the current HOF process works and how much they consider the input of the people that know 19th century baseball better than anybody.
As an aside, I believe Mathews finished either second or third in this year's voting, which was won by Charlie Bennett. Mathews was included on my ballot.