Think theres deserving 19th century players not in the HOF

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Let the hall of fame know,directly at this link.If so many people read this board and most have not only an interest but an outstanding knowledge of 19th century players than we should as a group be able to make a difference.

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/contact.htm

I personally wrote them and gave them a list of 10 players who i feel deserve better consideration for the Hall.Remember the veterans committee narrowed its last vote down to 25 players and Joe Wood and Carl Mays are the oldest players that have made that final 25 between the 2003 and 2005 voting.

You have to think,if these guys knew about a possible Hall of Fame spot,guys like Tony Mullane and Bobby Mathews wouldve reached that 300 win plateau that ensures their place in history. Just look at Sam Rice who finished just short of 3000 hits.When he was asked about it years after he retired he said (and im paraphrasing)"it didnt mean anything,it was just a round number,now people make a big deal about it,if i knew that i wouldve stuck around and got those last 13 hits". Whenever someone asks me about 3000 hit members i always include him in there along with that tidbit.


Other guys mightve kept playing to put up better stats or just stayed in better shape.While i really dont want to see 10 more guys thrown into the hall of fame at once i would like to see the more deserving guys get recognized.Lets see if they actually do consider our opinion important.I would take the knowledge of the games history in this vintage forum over any former group of players anyday.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

John,

Nice topic - I used the link you provided and put my two cents in regarding a few 19th century players. I'm sure our lists differ a little bit on the subject. My list of 19th century players that deserve to be in the HOF include Caruthers, Van Haltren and Stovey. Yes, there are others that are deserving like Larry Corcoran (elbow to the ribs and giggle a bit)...

What other 19th century players do other people feel should be enshrined. You have to figure that the HOF is somewhat watered down and that there are more deserving players that should be enshrined while others could be removed (although that wont happen).

[Archive]

Posted By: qualitycards.com

I always thought Pete Browning could/should be inducted.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/brownpe01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Ben

Wow, what a monster 1887 season Browning had

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

With due respect, I think you have to take players' achievements and statistics for what they were, not what they might have been had they played longer or had some other variable changed. Otherwise you get on a slippery slope that ends up asking for example what Darryl Strawberry might have accomplished had he taken better care of himself and got psychiatric help, etc. The fact of the matter is that Sam Rice did not get 3000 hits.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

For a ten year period, Browning was in the top 3 in the league in batting average in 9 of those years -- including a year in which he hit above .400. How on earth has this guy not been enshrined?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

With all due respect, I don't think people are talking about players like Darryl Strawberry here. When there is really only 1 player (Bid McPhee) that is in the Hall solely for his performance in the American Association, I think there are quite a few players from the 19th century that are deserving to be in the HOF. There were some amazing players in the AA that are deserving. That being said, there are few people outside of SABR and vintage collecting forums that have ever heard of a lot of the people that we are talking about, giving them little chance of actually getting in. They would rather elect marginal players from the 50's and 60's than elect some of the truly great players in baseball history.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert

Although his stats are impressive he never played a full season he averages less then 90 games a year, I woder why was he just injured all the time and back then guys played almost no matter what they where afraid to lose their place in the line up.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Peter the only thing wrong with that thinking is that people set certain standards and if a player doesnt reach it for whatever reason they arent thought of as highly.Tony Mullane sat out 1 1/2 seasons because of "contract disputes".He had 33 and 35 win seasons surrounding the first season he missed.He missed 300 wins by 16.Thats what kept him out of the hall of fame to this point,nothing else.For Bobby Mathews do you really think if he knew 300 wins would get him into a Hall of Fame he wouldve retired at the age of 35 just 3 wins short? He missed 2 entire seasons with contract disputes yet still came just 3 wins away from being famous.Now hes an afterthought

Sam Rice is an example i used of players not taking stats into account when they played,it wasnt an example of what couldve been,you missed that point.Also using Darryl Strawberry as an example is wrong because the whole time hes been alive theres been a Hall of Fame,and that totally goes against the basis of what i said.

I never said Rice had 3000 hits and i dont tell anyone he had it,i tell them he had 2987,then tell them what he said,again paraphrasing,then let them know he hit .293 in over 300 at-bats his last year in the majors.With him its not projecting stats to say he wouldve been great,he already was great and couldve easily played to get 13 more hits.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Milestones didn't matter back then so why should they be judged on those standards. Plus they are becoming obsolete. The 500 HR club is a joke and the 300 win club may never get another member. I would rather have seen Sam Rice bow out a couple hits shy than Wade Bogg's pathetic persuit of 3,000 hits. Look at Fred McGriff and his painful chase for a couple more homeruns. If he did get 10 more would that make him an instant future HOF member? Granted that no one has ever said reaching a milestone gets you a free pass (Bert Blyleven, 3,000 strikeout club) but when it comes down to it 2,987 hits is still only 13 shy of 3,000 and that is what should be considered.

Joe Wood for HOF 2007

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Right or wrong, isn't the knock on 19th Century players that, as a group, they were not as talented as the players in later eras because 19th Century players weren't paid much back then, making it difficult to play the game for a living? If the quality of players was less vis-a-vis the quality of players in later eras (I'm not saying that it was, but I think that is a common perception), then very good individual stats should not necessarily mandate HOF enshrinement. In any organized league for any sport, there will be players with standout statistics, but that doesn't mean they are great athletes if the overall pool of players is not that talented. Again, I'm not personally knocking the American Association - heck, I'm even in the market for an n172 McPhee - but this reflects my understanding as to why there are proportionately few players enshrined from the 1800s.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Mark, interesting thought and input. Players in the 1950s and 1960s had off season jobs to supplement their baseball incomes. I believe that it wasn't just the rookies and over the hill (minimally paid) vets that were working during the off season, there were stars working as well.

It would be impossible to cross/compare player stats into different eras so we should probably stick to comparing players within the same eras. I'm fairly certain that if you took Nolan Ryan back to the 1880s he'd have smoked everyone and his strikeout and win totals would be incredibly wicked.

In a comparison of eras there are many players that deserve to be enshrined based on the population and stats of the players already enshrined from their respective eras.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Thomas

I don't think anyone would want to pick up a bat against Nolan - Ruth, Williams or Cobb. When some pitching reached today's speed they had to adjust the distance. But by 1900 to 1915 some were throwing as hard as they do today.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

To make myself even more unpopular it seems to me that in the days where pitchers pitched twice as often as they do now, winning 300 was not as significant as say Roger Clemems doing it going every fifth day.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

dont worry Peter nothing could make you more unpopular

The reason i disagree with that statement sort of is that those guys pitched twice as much every season,threw a ton of pitches because fielding was also much worse,and didnt have the conditioning they do now,plus the fact 32 back then is much older than 32 now(not technically but physical toll).Most pitchers wore down young because of the incredible strain on their arms.It mightve taken them less seasons to do it but they packed more innings in half as many seasons

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

There still seems to be this huge misconcetion that pitchers prior to WW2 threw just as hard pitchers today. This simply isn't true on a pitch by pitch basis. Did they have the ability to throw 100mph? Sure, and Johnson, Feller and others most likely did. But they did not go out and throw their absolute hardest with every pitch like they do today.

I've read many interviews with pitchers from that era that stated they rarely threw their hardest except in certain situations. Back then, they knew there was no one to come in off the bench to save a game for them and that they were more than likely ahve to pitch at least 8 innings.

Jay

I like to sit outside drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

nice forum thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Just as most people knowledgeable about the game would agree that thanks to cronyism, sentimentality or just sheer stupidity there are members of the Hall of Fame who do not belong, they would also agree that there are still some 19th century players who do belong that are not enshrined.

Admittedly, it is difficult to compare the performance of players from different eras. To say that Nolan Ryan would have blown away the competition back then is as naive as thinking Pete Browning couldn't have cut it today. They each developed in their own era and given different environmental circumstances each might have failed miserably or soared mightily if they exchanged places. All you can say for certain is how they performed in their own era relative to the competition of that time.

Several good books have been done to try to allow one to equate performances across the baseball continuum. If you haven't read Whatever Happened To The Hall Of Fame, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract or Outrageous Fortune, you should. There are rational, plausible arguments contained within for exactly this issue.

Stepping off my soapbox and answering the question, I'd love to see pitchers Jim McCormick, Tony Mullane and Bobby Mathews and field players Harry Stovey, Jimmy Ryan and George Van Haltren get serious consideration.

Sorry, John - I was going to include Tommy Bond and Bob Caruthers among the pitchers, but then I'd have to include Larry Corcoran, too!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I really have 2 19th century players in mind who deserve entry to the Hall: Tip O'Neil and Jimmy Ryan. I won't bore you with their respective stats but both were standout players of their time. Ryan in particular put up career numbers far better than many who got in, eg. Bobby Doer and Bill Maz. He also is on quite a few 19th century cards, Mayo,N29, and N172. Oh well.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

If i had a vote for just one player id probably chose Caruthers just based on the fact he went 218-99 career as a pitcher but actually played more games in the outfield because he was such a good hitter too.A .282 career avg for a guy who was one of the best pitchers of his day should help his cause,could you imagine a pitcher nowadays leading the league in on base % like he did in 1886.

He had two 40 win seasons and also batted .357 with 102 runs scored in 1887 when he went 29-9 on the mound.

Contrary to popular belief i didnt mention Larry Corcoran in my email to the hall of fame despite his 5 year stretch from 1880-1884 which is comparable to anyone not named Albert Goodwill Spalding who has pitched before or since.


I would however like to see Jimmy Ryan make the hall(and do believe he deserves it anyway)because i have all 6 of his old judge poses.Not that i would sell them,but it would be cool to have all the poses of a hall of famer,and its not going to happen for any current HOF'er.Not at these OJ prices recently.


So,how many people actually wrote in their opinion to the Hall?

[Archive]

Posted By: will watson

i'd go with Caruthers, mainly because i own his N162 and i'd like it a lot better if he was a HOFer

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I have not written my opinion to the Hall, for the reasons cited above and others.

That is, I wish that there was an organization which would bestow honor on those players who have earned such recognition during our baseball history. But the existing Hall of Fame does not approach my requirements because:

- they include non-players
- they do not include some worthy players, as indicated in this thread
- they include many players who have merit, however do not imho deserve high recognition

This policy of the Hall has resulted in me having no interest in its findings. Eventhough in most cases I agree with their choices, the inclusion of lesser performing players along with the "best of the best" appears to me to diminish the performances of the top players.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

Jay~

Pitchers today do not throw their hardest every pitch either. If they did, they wouldn't last. I think pitchers pitch with strategy and try to "coast" as much as they can like the pitchers of the early days. The reason that strikeout totals were lower is that BATTERS took a different approach then than they do today.

Mathewson (the fadeaway or screwball), Brown (his curve ball), Grimes (his spitball) and others lived on off-speed pitches and control. Johnson, Waddell, Rusie, Young and others lived on speed. However, then the offensive game was hit and run, bunt, hit behind the runner, steal etc etc...Extra-base hits were few compared to today. And batters merely tried to make contact.

Pitchers "coast" to conserve energy or whatever today just like the old days. Look at pitchers like Palmer, Hunter and Roberts who gave up gobs of homeruns...with the majority being solo shots. Sometimes they would coast at certain situations and it cost them, but always bear down hard with the bases juiced or two on.

The major difference in the game is the offensive mindset - therein lies your difference in strike-out totals, extra-base hits and run totals. Today most players unbutton the shirt and swing from the heels. Look at the guys who are striking out! Bellhorn would hjave broken the K rescord, Jose Hernandez, too...guys are striking out in the 150's and it's no big deal!

My vote goes to Van Haltren - check out this guys numbers!

http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml>

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Yes, I sent in "Caruthers" and got a long e-mail in response. Part of it was fornm, but part of it was specifically geared to Caruthers. "You must know that Caruthers in eligible for the HOF in perpetuity"--or something like that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)

Personally, I'd go with Caruthers, Deacon White and Bill Dahlen as most deserving ......

Also, Browning (who is a tough call) didn't "only" play part of every season -- until the 1890's the season were much shorter.... Pitchers still ran up big numbers because each team usually only used 2 or 3 (at most) until the 1890's....

If you really want to see this thoroughly discussed you might spend some time poking around this site:

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom/

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

Not sure why, but to this point I've stayed out of the HOF threads, perhaps because I'm a bit biased. I'd be more willing to give opinions if I understood all the great 19th century players to the extent I've studied the Detroit players. However, the link above (Hall of Merit) does lend support to some of my personal favorites including Deacon White, Charlie Bennett, & Hardy Richardson. For those with even remote interest in the 19th century greats, I suggest reading about the Hall of Merit. Follow their selections from 1898 inagural ballot to 1952.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/primer/hom/

Thanks for the link Brian!

Hall of Merit Statement of Purpose:

The Hall of Merit is an internet group of baseball enthusiasts who will create its own “Hall of Merit” to rival the “Hall of Fame” in Cooperstown. Many believe that the National Baseball Hall of Fame has done a less than perfect job of selecting the game’s greatest players to honor. We will attempt to rectify mistakes made by Hall of Fame selections by conducting our own series of elections. A more thorough description of the Hall of Merit can be found here.

We will start with the 19th century players on the first HoM ballot, and then step through baseball history one year at a time. Our goal is to identify the best players of each era and elect them to the Hall of Merit.

The HoM journey throughout baseball history will be just as important as the final destination. Lively, spirited discussion will help shape voters’ beliefs regarding the relative merits of baseball’s best players. All members are expected to be considerate of others’ opinions/arguments and be willing to consider alternative points of view. Disagreements will inevitably arise, but we will strive to maintain civility at all times.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Ive thought about Bennett being a possibility while his stas arent impressive ive read numerous sources that put him as either an equal to Buck Ewing behind the plate or just below him.Ewing was one of the(some say he is) best all-around players from the 19th century.When you take that into account,its hard to not consider Bennett.

His fielding,not offense is what really whats him standout,and as opposed to todays time defense was held in very high regard back then.Thats why its hard for guys voting now to realize how valuable he really was.He had seasons where his fielding % was 50 points higher than league average.It is a little odd that the first 40 years of baseball are represented in the hall of fame by just 2 catchers and one,Bresnahan,most people think doesnt belong

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

I'd love to hear the discussions...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I would like to take a totally different approach to this topic (as I often do) and suggest it is time to start kicking people out of the Hall of Fame. How can you immortalize Bill Mazeroski and Bobby Doerr alongside Babe Ruth and Honus Wagner? These are two different tiers of players. I think it is time for the Hall to start calling up the descendants of these marginal HOFers and say: "Hello, Mrs. McCarthy? This is the Hall of Fame calling and we've decided that your great-grandfather Tommy is being kicked out. You have 72 hours to pick up his belongings or we are consigning them to a major auction house." Tongue-in-cheek, of course, but the Hall has too many members, many who seem to be suspect choices.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

You can't compare middle infielders to the power positions. Players at the MI positions were put their becuase of their defensive abilities. Anything they gave you with a bat was a plus. Listen to the ballplayers and most of them will tell you that Maz was the best gloveman at 2B. Defensive players are just as deserving as the HR hitters. If anything, they need throw a bunch of HR hitters. There are far too many of them in the Hall. The HR is the most boring and anti-climatic play in baseball.

Jay

I like to sit outside drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhett Yeakley

I have never understood why when a player is voted into the HOF for their offensive stats, everyone seems to be all for it. When a player (like Maz) gets inducted for being perhaps one of the greatest fielders ever, people complain about it. When did baseball decide that only offensive players get inducted? Is it because we can't analyze the crap out of fielding like we can with hitting? If Maz is in the HOF due to his fielding, then I don't have a problem with it. I personally believe how good someone is in the field is every bit as important as the numbers one puts up at the plate. How often have you seen an error change the face of a game? How often do you see a guy make an error with 2 outs, only to have the next guy hit it out of the park? Fielding is perhaps the most underappreciated stat in baseball.
-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I think that we could probably "analyze the crap out of" fielding, if anyone really cared. But hitting somehow captures the spirit of the game - you feel it when you make solid contact with the ball.

A pitcher can't do that, a fielder can't do that.

Two of the top four hitters are not in the hall of fame. Both lifetime and season.

Yet Maranville is in the hall - what is his lifetime BA?

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew Parks

Your point is well taken Gil, but I would like to throw this out there to forum:

Batting average is the weakest stat ever invented in any sport. I mean it basically says, "A single = a double = a triple = a homerun and walks = 0".

It basically measures the batter's ability to get on base via any type of hit and that's it. You can not accurately measure an offensive player's worth with batting average alone.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I've been involved with the SABR stats committee since the day I joined in the mid 80s, and no, you can't analyze the crap out of fielding statistically. It's been tried, but no one has really been able to come up with a reliable metric for measuring fielding, thus huge debates still rage about fielding, its importance, effect, etc.

Jay

I like to sit outside drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

I think that an initial assessment of a players fielding can include the following stats: G, TC, PO, A, E, DP, Avg.

Although I haven't thought much about fielding - ever - it seems apparent that further subdivisions could include: grounders and fly balls for TC, DP and errors, with throwing errors broken out seperately.

Also an assessment for infielders (including catchers) on bunts and pop flys could produce interesting data for comparisons. Covering steals and other aspects of fielding also appear on first glance to be parameters which could be addressed.

Certainly the above does not constitute an "analyzing the crap out" level of data production, but as an "off the top of my head" example, it appears to be a reasonable start. I imagine that SABR has gone way further than this. I wonder why they abandoned the effort.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

SABR has not abandoned the effort. The stats committee has gotten to the point where everything has to be a perfect mertirc, which has turned me off quite a bit. It's taken a lot of the joy out of looking at the game. There also seem to be a core group of members that seem to be anti-fielding, in that they belittle and bemoan every analysis of fielding. Doing an analysis of fielding is pretty much a thankless job.

Jay

I like to sit outside drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Jay:

I know one should never say "never," but I think SABR will never be able to quantify fielding as easily as they can hitting. A home run is basically exactly what it says it is, but fielding has so many intangible impacts that statistics probably won't ever tell the complete story.

Calculations like the league range factor attempt to provide a yardstick against which individual performers at a given position can be measured, but how does SABR attempt to account for one team who is stocked with sinkerball/groundball pitchers that might skew the statistics in favor of their infielders as compared to infielders who play in Denver behind fastball/flyball pitchers? And with the way pitchers are relieved these days, that impact can change several times in a single game.

I'm not saying not to try to come up with meaningful fielding statistics, just that it's a far more iffy proposition than measuring a batting average.

Kevin