Hall of Fame voting and WWII

[topcat61]

I was quite disheartened by this years enshrinement by the Modern Era Committee this year, but it got me to thinking about older players...specifically those who had their careers cut short by WWII.

Most of my thoughts on this center around Dom DiMaggio, Gil Hodges Buddy Lewis and the most obvious, Cecil Travis.

Cecil Travis looks like he'll be up next on the Veterans Committee in 2021 and my concern is that these types of players are being rejected because of their service time. Now before anyone says "well, there are plenty of WWII veterans in"...thats true, but how many of them besides Hank Greenberg were drafted? Cecil Travis and Buddy Lewis were drafted and received 6 month deferments from their enlistment boards in 1941 and Dom DiMaggio was classified as 4-F but convinced the Navy his eyesight wasnt an issue. He had said that he wasn't about to sit out the war and I'd have to think that the voters on the Veterans Committee have an understanding of this era while making their vote?

Are these voters historians and should they be? I think that they should be and I think there should be more of an emphasis on what voters look for when voting and why they vote the way they do? Id at least like to know why a guy like Travis or DiMaggio or Hodges aren't in the Hall of Fame? Seems to me that they're being punished but I could be wrong -if I am, I'd like to know why, and why sisnt anyone out there advocating for these guys to the Hall of Fame? Thanks.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

It has been accepted among the voting writers to account for service time in their voting. There are a number of players of the era whose numbers wouldn't normally quite be up to snuff but they lost 2 or 3 years of their prime to service to their country. If you credit Travis with matching the best 3 years of his career for the years he missed his WAR is still only 45. Hodges didn't really lose much if any major league time to the war as his first year back, 1946, was spent entirely in the minors. Buddy Lewis isn't really that close even if you do credit him with 3 peak years his WAR isn't even 40. DiMaggio would be about 47 WAR if you credit him with peak years. Not really HOF worthy.

Mickey Vernon was another one who always intrigued me. While his WAR also would only come to about 45 if you give him those years back he batted .356 his first year back from the war, winning the batting title. If you give him two similar years he winds up over 2800 hits, close to 600 Doubles and 1500 RBI, which would've been much harder to overlook especially in a time when raw stats were much more important. He won two batting titles and if there was a third that would've been an interesting addition to his resume as well.

[packs]

I'm not sure we ever got to see Cecil Travis' peak though, which is why in his case I think the gap makes him a HOFer. He was only getting better when he went to fight and usually a player puts up some of their best seasons between 28 and 31.

[rats60]

Gil Hodges didn't play in the majors in 1946. In 1947 at age 23 he only played 28 games. I don't see how his numbers would be significantly by service in WWII.

Cecil Travis played 12 seasons and has 29.4 WAR. He had an OPS+ 108 as SS/3b. He did have 6.4 WAR in 1941 with OPS+ 150 (his only season over 120) so it is possible that he could have added significantly to his numbers in 1942-1945. However, in 1946-1947 at age 32-33 he put up negative WAR. His case fails in my mind because he didn't do enough after the war to get credit for what he missed. You just can't put someone in the Hof for having 1 good season.

Buddy Lewis played 11 seasons and has 26.7 WAR. He had an OPS+ of 111 as 3b/RF. He only had 1 season of 4+ WAR with an OPS+ 132. He did have an OPS+ 168 in a half season in 1945, but in 1947 at age 30 he had an OPS+ 89. He played a partial season in 1949 at age 32 and was done. There is just not enough to suggest that he would have had 3.5 monster seasons to make him look like HOFer. Again, 1 good partial season doesn't make you a Hofer.

Dom DiMaggio played 11 seasons and has 32 WAR. His OPS+ is 110 for an OF. He had 2 seasons of 4+ WAR, 1942 and 1946 with OPS + of 121 and 123. Again, nothing really there to say HOF.

I think that guys that missed time due to WWII do get over looked. Johnny Mize played 15 seasons and had an OPS+ 158 and didn't get elected by the BBWAA. One of the top 3 guys over looked by them. However, the 3 guys you mentioned just didn't do enough on the field to say they would have been Hofers if they didn't serve in the war.

[packs]

You should look up Travis' history. His career tanked after the war because he was severely injured during it and received the Bronze Star.

[topcat61]

Those Army doctors were good enough to save Travis's feet from amputation. I honestly dont understand WAR or why it would be a major importance for Hall of Fame consideration when you have 9 players on a field? I man there are a lot of Hall of Famers who played on some pretty crappy teams including the guys I mention. Much of the time those players had no choice where they played.

Anyway, Hodges came up in 1943, played 1 game and entered the Marine Corps. I still feel that Dom DiMaggio and Johnny Pesky would have gotten more consideration along with other similar players.

[conor912]

All else being equal, had the Red Sox of the 40s won at least one ring, I think Dom would be in. Hard to make a case for Rizutto being in and not Dom other than the championships, IMO.

[egri]

Originally Posted by conor912

All else being equal, had the Red Sox of the 40s won at least one ring, I think Dom would be in. Hard to make a case for Rizutto being in and not Dom other than the championships, IMO.

I agree, and it's unfortunate those teams couldn't get any pitching. In 1950, when the team scored over 1,000 runs, they had one pitcher with an ERA below 4.00 (Mel Parnell at 3.61, next lowest was Joe Dobson at 4.18).

I've always considered DiMaggio, Hodges and Travis unfairly snubbed (Lewis I'm not knowledgeable enough on to form an opinion). Hodges' candidacy was hurt indirectly by his wartime service in another way as well; while in the Marines, he took up smoking, which contributed to his fatal heart attack.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by topcat61

Those Army doctors were good enough to save Travis's feet from amputation. I honestly dont understand WAR or why it would be a major importance for Hall of Fame consideration when you have 9 players on a field? I man there are a lot of Hall of Famers who played on some pretty crappy teams including the guys I mention. Much of the time those players had no choice where they played.

Anyway, Hodges came up in 1943, played 1 game and entered the Marine Corps. I still feel that Dom DiMaggio and Johnny Pesky would have gotten more consideration along with other similar players.

You don't understand WAR then. Playing for a crummy team has no impact.

Oh, and Rats, look two posts above you.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by conor912

All else being equal, had the Red Sox of the 40s won at least one ring, I think Dom would be in. Hard to make a case for Rizutto being in and not Dom other than the championships, IMO.

Rizzuto is one of the worst players in the HOF does that mean we compound the mistake?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by egri

I agree, and it's unfortunate those teams couldn't get any pitching. In 1950, when the team scored over 1,000 runs, they had one pitcher with an ERA below 4.00 (Mel Parnell at 3.61, next lowest was Joe Dobson at 4.18).

I've always considered DiMaggio, Hodges and Travis unfairly snubbed (Lewis I'm not knowledgeable enough on to form an opinion). Hodges' candidacy was hurt indirectly by his wartime service in another way as well; while in the Marines, he took up smoking, which contributed to his fatal heart attack.

MLB ERA in 1950 was 4.38

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Rizzuto is one of the worst players in the HOF does that mean we compound the mistake?

You could choose to look at it that way, absolutely. But it doesn’t change the fact that we’re talking about two (arguably) equal players and one of them is in and one isn’t.

[egri]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

MLB ERA in 1950 was 4.38

And the Red Sox had an ERA of 4.88.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by packs

You should look up Travis' history. His career tanked after the war because he was severely injured during it and received the Bronze Star.

This. Plus I have always thought it was extraordinarily unfair to penalize a player for serving his country for four years when called in the first place. Looking at Travis post WWII career and basing a decision on his numbers then is similarly unfair. He suffered severe frostbite during the Battle of the Bulge and damn near lost his feet. That he is not going to play at the same level after suffering what should have been a career ending injury is kind of a duh thing. Dinging him for that is somewhat akin to saying Gale Sayers wasn't a HOFer because he didn't play long enough after both of his knee injuries, but substantially worse IMO. At least Sayers' injuries occurred in a game he chose to play. Travis' injuries occurred due to a situation that our country required him to be in. I personally think that is a vastly different situation, particularly when he was clearly on a HOF track when called.

In my estimation, Travis is by far the most striking example of a career wholly derailed by something completely out of his control and completely unrelated to baseball. I realize he won't get in, ever. But he is absolutely due for far more credit than he has ever been given. The fact that he never gets it is too bad.

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Rizzuto is one of the worst players in the HOF does that mean we compound the mistake?

Hey Scott

Ole buddy....you cannot talk like that about my neighbor, Rizzuto. I grew up living only two blocks away from him in Hillside, NJ.

I personally knew him for many years, and you couldn't meet a nicer, friendlier person. OK, all that does not get him in the HOF.

But, another Ted said it the best. In 1984, I met Ted Williams up in Cooperstown. We had a tremendous conversation for about
an hour (actually, I did most of the listening). I told him when I was a kid, I rooted for him to hit HR's in the upper RF stands at
Yankee Stadium. He was somewhat confused, since earlier I had told Ted I was a YANKEES fan, because Rizzuto was my nearby
neighbor.
Why did I root for Ted, because as a 10-year old kid, I liked him since his name was "Theodore". Furthermore, I told him that....
"at the end of the season I knew the YANKEES would be the Champions".

Ted cracked up laughing....but then he got real serious and told me...."if Rizzuto was playing for the Red Sox in those days, they
would have been the Champions". He went on to explain this......Rizzuto was the best Lead-Off player he had ever seen. Rizzuto
would get a Hit, or Bunt, or Walk (or even get hit by a pitch). Then Steal 2nd Base, and eventually score. Ted emphasized an old
axiom in BB which says if a Lead-Off batter gets on 1st base, he will score a Run 3 out of every 4 times.

When Ted Williams was on the HOF Veterans Committee he was very instrumental in getting Rizzuto into the HOF.


Take care, my friend.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

This. Plus I have always thought it was extraordinarily unfair to penalize a player for serving his country for four years when called in the first place. Looking at Travis post WWII career and basing a decision on his numbers then is similarly unfair. He suffered severe frostbite during the Battle of the Bulge and damn near lost his feet. That he is not going to play at the same level after suffering what should have been a career ending injury is kind of a duh thing. Dinging him for that is somewhat akin to saying Gale Sayers wasn't a HOFer because he didn't play long enough after both of his knee injuries, but substantially worse IMO. At least Sayers' injuries occurred in a game he chose to play. Travis' injuries occurred due to a situation that our country required him to be in. I personally think that is a vastly different situation, particularly when he was clearly on a HOF track when called.

In my estimation, Travis is by far the most striking example of a career wholly derailed by something completely out of his control and completely unrelated to baseball. I realize he won't get in, ever. But he is absolutely due for far more credit than he has ever been given. The fact that he never gets it is too bad.

I like Travis, and wouldn't have a problem with him in the Hall, but Warren Spahn was also in the battle of the Bulge, sustained injuries to his feet and was shell shocked, and went on to have a hall of fame career.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I like Travis, and wouldn't have a problem with him in the Hall, but Warren Spahn was also in the battle of the Bulge, sustained injuries to his feet and was shell shocked, and went on to have a hall of fame career.

He was wounded in a foot by shrapnel while helping defend Ludendorff Bridge. Not minimizing it, but that is substantially different than almost losing both feet to frostbite IMO.

Travis was one of the "battling bastards of Bastogne." Completely surrounded, outmanned, outflanked, out of food and water, sleeping in his foxhole in the freezing temperatures. I have nothing but respect for him.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by tedzan

Hey Scott

Ole buddy....you cannot talk like that about my neighbor, Rizzuto. I grew up living only two blocks away from him in Hillside, NJ.

I personally knew him for many years, and you couldn't meet a nicer, friendlier person. OK, all that does not get him in the HOF.

But, another Ted said it the best. In 1984, I met Ted Williams up in Cooperstown. We had a tremendous conversation for about
an hour (actually, I did most of the listening). I told him when I was a kid, I rooted for him to hit HR's in the upper RF stands at
Yankee Stadium. He was somewhat confused, since earlier I had told Ted I was a YANKEES fan, because Rizzuto was my nearby
neighbor.
Why did I root for Ted, because as a 10-year old kid, I liked him since his name was "Theodore". Furthermore, I told him that....
"at the end of the season I knew the YANKEES would be the Champions".

Ted cracked up laughing....but then he got real serious and told me...."if Rizzuto was playing for the Red Sox in those days, they
would have been the Champions". He went on to explain this......Rizzuto was the best Lead-Off player he had ever seen. Rizzuto
would get a Hit, or Bunt, or Walk (or even get hit by a pitch). Then Steal 2nd Base, and eventually score. Ted emphasized an old
axiom in BB which says if a Lead-Off batter gets on 1st base, he will score a Run 3 out of every 4 times.

When Ted Williams was on the HOF Veterans Committee he was very instrumental in getting Rizzuto into the HOF.


Take care, my friend.


TED Z

T206 Reference
.

Sorry Ted, but the other Ted was notorious for wanting EVERYONE in the hall of fame with him. I'd value the opinion of a LOT of people more than Williams. Frankly I'd take your word over Ted's lol. For my money Alvin Dark belongs in the Hall before Phil. Phil was a plus defender (but no Ozzie Smith, or even Pee Wee Reese) and only had one exceptional offensive season and several above average. Even if you give him his war years back he barely would've cleared 2000 hits.

I'm definitely one of those guys who wishes the Hall was more exclusive. Rizzuto was a very good player with flashes of greatness, but if he had played in Cleveland he wouldn't be in the Hall.

Unlike some other people here though I can agree to cordially disagree!

Happy Holidays!

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

He was wounded in a foot by shrapnel while helping defend Ludendorff Bridge. Not minimizing it, but that is substantially different than almost losing both feet to frostbite IMO.

Travis was one of the "battling bastards of Bastogne." Completely surrounded, outmanned, outflanked, out of food and water, sleeping in his foxhole in the freezing temperatures. I have nothing but respect for him.

True, but I've also read where he almost lost a couple of toes to frostbite...again, not as bad as almost losing both feet, but it was so cold during that battle that most soldiers suffered some sort of frostbite...couldn't be helped. Regardless, I've always liked Travis but didn't know about his history in the military. Love hearing those stories.

[Kenny Cole]

I don't expect him to ever be inducted. I think that he is better, based on his actual numbers, than some SSs already in, at least offensively, but I also get that he won't be elected. Nonetheless, I really dislike the lack of respect for a guy who literally sacrificed his entire career to serve our country when called to do so. I think that entirely sucks. Overall, I think that WWII negatively affected more potential HOF players than any other conflict. The lack of consideration given to that fact is very unfortunate IMO.

[packs]

I'm really having a hard time understanding what Warren Spahn has to do with Cecil Travis. Unless Warren Spahn suffered the same exact injury and played short stop what does he have to do with anything?

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

You don't understand WAR then. Playing for a crummy team has no impact.

Oh, and Rats, look two posts above you.

I said I didn't understand WAR. Playing for crappy teams with no run support
and batting order has something to say about certain stats.

https://bellyupsports.com/2018/08/wa...8a_08ue12UbEWY
"WAR- Why it’s a Dumb Statistic", August 2018 by Bellyupsports.com

[topcat61]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

This. Plus I have always thought it was extraordinarily unfair to penalize a player for serving his country for four years when called in the first place. Looking at Travis post WWII career and basing a decision on his numbers then is similarly unfair. He suffered severe frostbite during the Battle of the Bulge and damn near lost his feet. That he is not going to play at the same level after suffering what should have been a career ending injury is kind of a duh thing. Dinging him for that is somewhat akin to saying Gale Sayers wasn't a HOFer because he didn't play long enough after both of his knee injuries, but substantially worse IMO. At least Sayers' injuries occurred in a game he chose to play. Travis' injuries occurred due to a situation that our country required him to be in. I personally think that is a vastly different situation, particularly when he was clearly on a HOF track when called.

In my estimation, Travis is by far the most striking example of a career wholly derailed by something completely out of his control and completely unrelated to baseball. I realize he won't get in, ever. But he is absolutely due for far more credit than he has ever been given. The fact that he never gets it is too bad.

Very well said. I do think at some point he'll get in, but it'll take voters with enough understanding of everything you''ve just stated.

[Exhibitman]

What Kenny said. Travis was a speedster whose game was mobility and disruption; damage his feet and it is over, as was the case. He paid the price and would make a reasonable addition to the Hall. At least I'd have no issues with it, which is great because I know how important my views are to the HOF committee.

[conor912]

I love how we’re now debating which war injuries are Hall worthy

[tedzan]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Sorry Ted, but the other Ted was notorious for wanting EVERYONE in the hall of fame with him. I'd value the opinion of a LOT of people more than Williams. Frankly I'd take your word over Ted's lol. For my money Alvin Dark belongs in the Hall before Phil. Phil was a plus defender (but no Ozzie Smith, or even Pee Wee Reese) and only had one exceptional offensive season and several above average. Even if you give him his war years back he barely would've cleared 2000 hits.

I'm definitely one of those guys who wishes the Hall was more exclusive. Rizzuto was a very good player with flashes of greatness, but if he had played in Cleveland he wouldn't be in the Hall.

Unlike some other people here though I can agree to cordially disagree!

Happy Holidays!

Scott

"Agree, to disagree".....the most phony phrase in this "new-speak" world. I hate that phrase. What the hell does it actually mean ? Whatever, I totally disagree with you, ole buddy.

I normally do not discuss BB topics with any one who did not experience the subject matter in real-time. Because there really are no Stats, hearsay, etc., etc. that can substitute for
having seen the players perform. I was an avid BB fan growing up in the late 1940's - 1950's. As a young guy, I went to all three New York Stadiums and watched a lot of BB on TV.
The Yankees "dynasty" (1949 - 1953) was an amazing thing to see. It is an achievement in BB which I doubt will ever be repeated. It began with Casey Stengel in 1949 (which the
phony NY media declared him a "clown"). Sure, Casey was an underrated Manager in the Majors and the Minors in the past. However, given the right ballplayers he became a Base-
ball genius.
This I can attest to from having lengthy conversations with Tommy Henrich, Johnny Mize, and Phil Rizzuto. I was on a flight to Chicago in April of 1984 with Phil Rizzuto (he invited
me to sit in 1st Class with him). The common theme from these three ballplayers was that Stengel inspired them to play at their best. Indeed Rizzuto in 1949 scored 110 Runs and
drove in 65 Runs (pretty good for a Lead-Off batter). Well, the MVP Committee thought enough of Phil that he came in 2nd that year (Ted Williams was awarded MVP).
In 1950, Rizzuto was awarded the MVP. His numbers in 1950 = 200 Hits, BA = .324, 125 Runs, 66 RBI's, 92 BB, 7 HR's (and only 39 KO's). Phil's defensive play was outstanding.

Scott, all those years of BB are very clear in my mind. You will find out as you get to be my age that your mind starts reverting back to your youth. And you recall a lot of this stuff
as it may have occurred recently. I'll end with this...….

Here's a Wirephoto of the Oct 1st 1949 Play-Off game against Boston. Allie Reynolds just didn't have it that day, so Casey Stengel brings in the Yankees ace reliever Joe Page in the
3rd inning. Page completely shuts-down the Red Sox batters, allowing only one Hit in 6 2/3rds innings. And, Johnny Lindell drives a long HR into the Left Field seats of Yankee Sta-
dium to win game. I bring this particular event to you to as an example of Baseball games which I still clearly remember from 70 years ago.



Johnny Lindell …….……………………….…………….. Joe Page …………………………. Joe DiMaggio



TED Z

T206 Reference
.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Ted,

I just meant that in a day and age when people seem to think anyone who disagrees with them is at best a substandard intellect, and at worst sub-human, I just think of the person in question as a friend who sees things differently from me. It's not some reason to hold a grudge or think less of someone. Probably bordering on the political now so I'll stop.

[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.

[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?

[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...

[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.

[packs]

Originally Posted by rats60

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.

OK, but why are they in? Is Dean in for those reasons or is Dean in because he won 30 games? Johan Santana has a higher adjusted ERA than he does and two Cy Youngs, 3 ERA titles to Dean's zero, three consecutive strike out crowns to Dean's 4, but he's not even close to being considered a HOFer.

Is Wilson in because of his record setting rbi season or not?

Wilson was not elected until 1979, so I highly doubt those numbers you just brought up jumped out to anyone, especially since they wouldn't have heard of OPS.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

OK, but why are they in? Is Dean in for those reasons or is Dean in because he won 30 games? Is Wilson in because of his record setting rbi season or not?

Wilson was not elected until 1979, so I highly doubt those numbers you just brought up jumped out to anyone, especially since they wouldn't have heard of OPS.

The answer is "No". Those milestones obviously helped, but if Wilson and Dean had had only 1 excellent season, they almost certainly would not have been elected. Wilson winning 4 home run crowns as well as setting that major record, is what did it. Dean's other achievements are highlighted above by Rats. Neither are strong hall of famers, but they had many more accomplishments and hall of fame level seasons than Travis' 1.

I cannot think of a player who is in the hall of fame purely on the strength of a single season, even among the worst they have chosen.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

The answer is "No". Those milestones obviously helped, but if Wilson and Dean had had only 1 excellent season, they almost certainly would not have been elected. Wilson winning 4 home run crowns as well as setting that major record, is what did it. Dean's other achievements are highlighted above by Rats. Neither are strong hall of famers, but they had many more accomplishments and hall of fame level seasons than Travis' 1.

I cannot think of a player who is in the hall of fame purely on the strength of a single season, even among the worst they have chosen.

What makes Dean a HOFer and not Johan Santana if not his 30 wins?

And is Jack Chesbro in the HOF for any other reason than his 41 win season?

Here's one more for you: Albert Belle and Hack Wilson have pretty similar numbers, don't they? Difference in WAR is negligible, OPS+ is exactly the same, whereas Hack put up 2 seasons with an OPS over 1000, Belle put up 4, including 3 in a row. Hack's single season high for OPS+ was 177. Belle's was 194.

However, only one of the two players set a single season rbi record and that player is in the HOF.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

What makes Dean a HOFer and not Johan Santana if not his 30 wins?

And is Jack Chesbro in the HOF for any other reason than his 41 win season?

Here's one more for you: Albert Belle and Hack Wilson have pretty similar numbers, don't they? Difference in WAR is negligible, OPS+ is exactly the same, whereas Hack put up 2 seasons with an OPS over 1000, Belle put up 4, including 3 in a row. Hack's single season high for OPS+ was 177. Belle's was 194.

However, only one of the two players set a single season rbi record and that player is in the HOF.

Is your argument that Dean accomplished nothing besides winning 30 games and this is the only reason he is in the hall? Or is it that if he is in, Johan should be in? These two things are not at all the same. I would not vote for either personally, but they are comparable. Johan has a hall of fame argument. He posted an ERA+ of 129 or greater every year from 2002-2010, won 2 Cy Youngs, 3 ERA crowns, led the league in WHIP 4 times and more. Their inning counts are awfully low, but I don't think Johan would be a terrible hall of fame selection, and is better than some pitchers already in in my book. Johan had 8 excellent level seasons (2002 was a partial season, though). Travis had 1 excellent season.


Albert Belle I would vote for. He is not in the hall of fame more because he was a piece of trash as a human being. He had this reputation before he was arrested for DUI's, exposing himself to children, chasing children down in his car, and stalking an ex. I don't think outside of baseball problems should relate to a baseball hall of fame selection, but there is a lot more going on with the vote for Belle than a straight statistical analysis. It is extremely misleading to equate him not being in with Hack.

[packs]

My only point is that the HOF has rewarded players with induction for one incredible season. Dean's accomplishments are so in line with Santana's that they could be almost the same player, but one of them won 30 games and the other didn't. It's the 30 games that sets them apart and makes one a HOFer over the other. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying what Travis did is equal to Dean winning 30 games or Wilson's rbi record. I'm simply trying to point out that the HOF has inducted players based on one out of this world season and the promise of what could have been if not for XYZ.

You don't have an argument for Chesbro, right? We are in agreement that he's only in the HOF because he won 41 games in a season once?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

My only point is that the HOF has rewarded players with induction for one incredible season. Dean's accomplishments are so in line with Santana's that they could be almost the same player, but one of them won 30 games and the other didn't. It's the 30 games that sets them apart and makes one a HOFer over the other. That's all I'm trying to say. I'm not saying what Travis did is equal to Dean winning 30 games or Wilson's rbi record. I'm simply trying to point out that the HOF has inducted players based on one out of this world season and the promise of what could have been if not for XYZ.

You don't have an argument for Chesbro, right? We are in agreement that he's only in the HOF because he won 41 games in a season once?

These two had short careers, but if all they accomplished was Dean's 1934 season and Hack's RBI record, they would absolutely not be in the hall of fame. Again, I probably would not vote for either myself, but to ignore both of these mens other fantastic seasons is not just misleading, it's factually wrong.

We do not agree on Chesbro either. Chesbro was a star pitcher in 1901, 1902 and 1905 as well. He led the league in wins in 1901. He had 4 hall of fame level seasons, posting ERA's far, far better than the league. Obviously the 41 win season was his best, and a key component of his value, but if he had not had the other seasons, he would also not be in the hall of fame. He proved more durable than Dean or Santana, pitching 1,000 innings more than either of them. Even among the players I think are among the worst selections to the Hall, they are not in for 1 single season. This claim is just not true, and is easily proven incorrect by looking at their season by season statistics. There is not a single player in the Hall of Fame who only had 1 excellent/hall of fame season.

[packs]

If you say so. I can think of a million pitchers with 4 good seasons. Even Chesbro's Wikipedia includes notes about how dubious his selection was and Bill James himself says he's only in for his 1904 season.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

If you say so. I can think of a million pitchers with 4 good seasons. Even Chesbro's Wikipedia includes notes about how dubious his selection was and Bill James himself says he's only in for his 1904 season.

As I just said above, he only had 4 excellent seasons and I think he is among the worst in the Hall of Fame. I agree with this. I would not vote for Chesbro either.

The claim that he only had 1 hall of fame level season and is in only for this season is pretty easily disproven by looking at his annual statistics.

[packs]

So he's in the HOF for having 4 excellent seasons and not the 41 wins? I highly doubt that. There are a lot of pitchers with 4 excellent seasons.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by packs

So he's in the HOF for having 4 excellent seasons and not the 41 wins? I highly doubt that. There are a lot of pitchers with 4 excellent seasons.

If you remove a player best season, the bottom quarter of the hall probably falls out. However, if they only had that 1 season at a high level, none of them would be in either. I would love to hear a single, solitary example of a player who had ONE hall of fame level season. I will happily say you are right if even just one example can be shown.

[packs]

Originally Posted by G1911

If you remove a player best season, the bottom quarter of the hall probably falls out. However, if they only had that 1 season at a high level, none of them would be in either. I would love to hear a single, solitary example of a player who had ONE hall of fame level season. I will happily say you are right if even just one example can be shown.

We're not talking about the best season. It's the ONLY season that made him a HOFer. I'm sorry, but if Chesbro won 41 games over three more seasons he's not in the HOF. He's only in the HOF because he won 41 games in one season. To view him any other way seems like a reach to me. None of the seasons you brought up as being "excellent" seem all that excellent. Even when he led the league in wins in 1902, he wasn't even the best pitcher on his own team. Nor was he the best pitcher in 1901. Each year he was outclassed by Deacon Phillippe and Jess Tannehil, nether of whom are HOFers. Neither of whom won 41 games.