Next Pre-1900 Member of the HOF [Archive]

View Full Version : Next Pre-1900 Member of the HOF

Archive

05-23-2002, 07:49 AM

Posted By: Jay Miller  As I was pageing through the Smolin Auction catalog and looking at the grouping of Old Judge I started wondering who I thought had the best chance of being the next pre-1900 member of the HOF. I would like to throw the question open to the board. I would say that the best bet is Dummy Hoy. I'm not sure he is the best pre-1900 player still not in the Hall, but he has a compelling story and an established marketing organization behind him. Others that come to mind are Stovey, Van Haltren, Caruthers, Browning and Orr.

Archive

05-23-2002, 08:04 AM

Posted By: john......would have to be jimmy ryan and tony mullane. I would like to see all the players from the 19th century who deserve to be elected just get it over with in one year,i see no reason to wait longer to elect them.

Archive

05-23-2002, 09:05 AM

Posted By: HalleyGator I think the HOF should go the OTHER WAY and start kicking some guys out rather than putting more old guys in. Get rid of Dave Bancroft, Eppa Rixey, Travis Jackson, Fergie Jenkins, Jim Bunning and a host of other "marginal" guys.

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:15 AM

Posted By: Kevin Cummings.....but an emotional case certainly could be made for Dummy Hoy based on his intangible contribution to the game (although statistically he's in the Tip O'Neill neighborhood). The statistically most deserving pitcher is, I think, Jim McCormick, but Tony Mullane and Bobby Mathews (who both should have been 300 game winners) are probably more likely to get in. As for field players, I'd personally like to see George Van Haltren, but for my runner-up vote it's a dead heat between Jimmy Ryan and Bill Dahlen.

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:16 AM

Posted By: johnhe doesnt want more people because it would be more cards he would have to buy.get your ryan,mullane,caruthers,van haltren,hoy,stovey cards now hal otherwise youll be paying for it later

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:17 AM

Posted By: jeffI'm all for Mullane...but only because I just got an OJ of him. (For next to nothin', as OJs go.) But for everybody else, I'm with Hal -- star kicking them out!

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:21 AM

Posted By: M.E.This message has been removed as nobody seems to be aware of who M.E. is, and the policy against anonymous posts. To M.E.: There was nothing wrong with your post per se, except that if you want to be critical, you can't be anonymous and have to be accountable for your words.

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:28 AM

Posted By: Jaime Leiderman...

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:48 AM

Posted By: Jay Miller...

Archive

05-23-2002, 10:50 AM

Posted By: Tom As for the question at hand........Browning can't go in till I get an OJ cabinet of him.........I've got a couple small ones.........Definitely think Mullane, Van Haltren, Mathews should be in along with Ryan. I've got an OJ cabinet on Ryan and a W600 on him. Kind of neat and a pretty big (13-14 years) gap between the card dates. I agree that there are a lot of marginal performers in there but they're there to stay........and I also agree that there may not be another 19th century person put in unless there is a STRONG contingency behind their candidacy........

Archive

05-23-2002, 11:55 AM

Posted By: HalleyGator John is 100% accurate in that I am AGAINST any new HOF'ers because it will cost me money!!!

Archive

05-23-2002, 01:43 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarI don't know. It'll be someone I've hardly heard of and can't find a card of. There's some new rule for voting for old timers which is going to keep them out, but as James says, every action taken by the HOF has an equal and opposite reaction.

Archive

05-23-2002, 02:08 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar...

Archive

05-23-2002, 02:14 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeAs I understant the "revamped" rules for election, 19th Century ballplayers are lumped in with the rest of the eligible veterans for consideration by the new Veteran's Committee. That committee now consists of all living members of the Hall of Fame, the Spink and Frick Award recipients, and all the members of the old Veteran's Committee whose terms haven't expired. What that is probably going to mean is that there won't be another 19th Century ballplayer elected in the foreseeable future. The way I see it, there are now a whole lot of people on the new Committee who have friends they played with or against (or covered/wrote about). I think its almost a given that they will want to see their buddies get elected to the Hall first. Fair or not, I don't think the committee members are going to be too concerned about electing guys who played 100 years ago. While I would like to see Ryan, Mullane, Stovey, Van Haltren, Dahlen, etc. get in, I just don't think its going to happen. They will once again be put on the back burner.

Archive

05-23-2002, 11:29 PM

Posted By: Brian HodesThe Hall of Fame's site actually has a list of all players under consideration from this category who can get in if they receive votes from a certain number of voters in certain groups (I won't attempt to recap the byzantine structure of the whole thing). Anyways, for your consideration here is a link to the list ---->>>>> <a href="http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/LIST_200_60.htm" target=_new>http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/veterans/LIST_200_60.htm</a> To my thinking the most egregious omission from this "Hall of Fame purgatory list" from the 19th century is poor Bobby Matthews , a superb pitcher who won 297 games if you add his National Association totals to his "major league" totals -- "You could look it up": <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mathebo01.shtml" target=_new>http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/mathebo01.shtml</a>

Archive

05-24-2002, 05:18 AM

Posted By: Kevin Cummings........that 19th century players are generally going to be screwed by the new voting system - 250+ game winners like Jim McCormick and Gus Weyhing aren't on the list but Wilbur Wood and Ray Kremer are. Who the heck is Ray Kremer?

Archive

05-24-2002, 07:15 AM

Posted By: runscottThe list is weird, though - Claude Osteen? I didn't realize that Maury Wills wasn't in - I'm going to have to move him up to second on my list, below Reulbach and above Cravvath.

Archive

05-24-2002, 08:05 AM

Posted By: Jay MillerThanks Brian! I didn't realize that list existed. I guess that says that there are only ten possible Old Judge represented players who could make it into the Hall: Browning Caruthers Cross Mullane Glasscock Ryan Hoy Stovey Tiernan Van Haltren Of those, two are very tough to find (Browning and Hoy) and one is fairly tough (Cross). The remainder are readily available.

Archive

05-24-2002, 11:18 AM

Posted By: john....chris von der ahe and charles buffington are also in the old judge set and on the list

Archive

05-24-2002, 12:02 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerJohn---I missed Buffington, as well as the second list. In addition to Von der Ahe, Patsy Tebeau is also on the second list making the total number of Old Judge set participants an unlucky 13. I guess to us numerologists that means none will get in next election (unless of course you consider 13 to be lucky--my sister got married on Friday the 13th 52 years ago and she and her husband are still happily married so I guess for some 13 is lucky)

Archive

05-24-2002, 01:19 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarThere's one in the Sloate and Smolin auction, you recently auctioned one (or are they the same? I don't think so). I won one from Lipset 3-4 years ago, there've been a couple in Mastro auctions in the last 2 years. I guess I always notice Hoys, that's all. "Havana Heat" is excellent. I don't care what you guys say, I'm buying Seth Nagdeman's Steinitz. N162 chess. HOF!

Archive

05-24-2002, 07:19 PM

Posted By: edhansI would vote for Van Haltren, Stovey, Browning, Dahlen and Mullane. Caruthers and Orr were great players, but played only 9 and 8 years respectively. Not sure if this disqualifies them. Thanks for the great thread.

Archive

05-24-2002, 08:39 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerJulie--I do think the Hoy is tough. Not impossible like some, but tough. I think Browning is in the same class. They both have a cult like following which has caused the supply of these cards to dry up. If either makes the HOF I could see their cards being as tough or tougher than McPhee has become. Go after that chess guy. It won't take much to complete the set of chess cards.

Archive

05-24-2002, 09:17 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar...

Archive

05-25-2002, 06:22 AM

Posted By: TomI must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I must buy Pete Browning........ I have no idea what you're talking about Jay.......

Archive

05-26-2002, 11:14 AM

Posted By: Robbie CulpepperKremer pitched for the Pirates (1924-33), winning 62.7% of his decisions & leading the league in ERA in 1926 & 27- if he is to be considered, Sam Leever should be considered first. While only 22-23 in the 19th Century, he won 66 % of his decisions, many as second banana to Victor Willis- a recently elected HOFer (and a big surprise to me). Of course, by then, you find yourself in the continual question of do good players make for great teams or do good teams make great players and how do you judge each's value (maybe win-shares). I think for most 20th Century players not currently in, you have to feel you've got that hurdle to clear. The 19th Century players, and American Assoication players in particular, do not get a 'fair shake'- thank goodness for this type of forum- to exchange opinions and vent frustations at the lack of appreciation of history that make up today's world. For 19th Century players, my emotional choice would be Dummy Hoy, but Bob Caruthers, Bobby Mathews, Tony Mullane, and Pete Browning would head my choices of those most deserving. I think the following should also be mentioned: Paul Hines, Joe Start, Mike Tiernan, & Lipman Pike.

Archive

05-26-2002, 02:01 PM

Posted By: Julie VognarPete Browning played in the majors from 1882-1894; most people remember him with Louisville. Career B.A: 341. dates: 1861-1905. Problem: he didn't play full seasons very much. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

05-26-2002, 08:43 PM

Posted By: Jay MillerDidn't Browning have Mastoiditis which kept him in pain and limited his playing time? To overcome this and play as well as he did should get him his own wing in the HOF. The way I look at who deserves to be in the HOF is if I were alive in 1889 and I was choosing up a team which players would I draft first. My guess is that Old Pete would be near the top of my list.

Archive

05-27-2002, 08:59 PM

Posted By: Jaime LeidermanHas anyone read these books? Baseball Pioneers; Ratings of Nineteenth Century Players by Charles Faber. Nineteenth Century Baseball: Year-by-Year Statistics for the Major League Team, 1871-1900 by Marshall Wright. jl