New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article [Archive]

View Full Version : New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article

Archive

08-25-2008, 01:54 PM

Posted By: T206CollectorTen players to be considered by Veterans Committee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Associated Press COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- Allie Reynolds, Joe Gordon and Vern Stephens are among 10 players whose careers began before 1943 who will be considered by the Hall of Fame's constituted Veterans Committee when it meets on Dec. 7 . Bill Dahlen, Wes Ferrell, Sherry Magee, Carl Mays, Mickey Vernon, Bucky Walters and Deacon White also will be on the ballot, the Hall said Monday. The 10 finalists were selected by a committee of the Baseball Writers' Association of America that considered pre-1943 players. A 12-member committee of Hall of Famers, media and historians will vote. Players must appear on 75 percent of the ballots to gain election. Results will be announced Dec. 8 at the winter meetings in Las Vegas, and anyone elected will be inducted July 26. The next vote for pre-1943 players will take place in 2013. The hall will announce 10 finalists for players whose careers began in 1943 or later. Reynolds, a six-time All-Star and six-time World Series winner, was 182-107 for the Cleveland Indians and New York Yankees from 1942-53. Gordon, the 1942 AL MVP, was a nine-time All-Star who played for the Yankees and Cleveland from 1938-43 and 1946-50. Stephens was an eight-time All-Star who led the AL in RBIs three times while playing for the St. Louis Browns, Boston, Chicago White Sox and Baltimore from 1941-55. A revamped committee met in December and considered managers and executives. It voted in former commissioner Bowie Kuhn, former Dodgers owner Walter O'Malley, managers Dick Williams and Billy Southworth and ex-Pittsburgh owner Barney Dreyfuss while bypassing former players' association head Marvin Miller. The format of the Veterans Committee had been changed twice since 2001, when charges of cronyism accompanied the election of Bill Mazeroski. The 15-member panel was expanded to include every living member of the Hall, but that group failed to elect anyone in three tries. The Hall then changed to the current format of separate panels. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Visit <a href="http://www.t206collector.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206collector.com</a> for signed deadball card galleries, articles and more!

Archive

08-25-2008, 01:56 PM

Posted By: Adam BaxterI'd like to see both Dahlen and White get in. Doesn't Deacon White have the longest career in Professional Baseball history?

Archive

08-25-2008, 01:59 PM

Posted By: leonDepending on how you look at it I would think Connie Mack or maybe Casey Stengel had the longest careers...

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:08 PM

Posted By: AnonymousThe HOF should be kicking people out, not stretching to let more decidedly unworthy players in.

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:15 PM

Posted By: Adam BaxterWhite only played about 15 years, but he did play in three different decades (1870,s, '80's, '90's)

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:23 PM

Posted By: PaulI know he won't get in, but I've been collecting Vern Stephens cards for years. I think he is one of the most under-appreciated players ever, but probably does fall below the bar for HOFers.

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:23 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAdam- it's Deacon McGuire who played 26 seasons. Dahlen is a worthy choice but I'm with Peter- start kicking out all the marginal guys. Give 'em all a hard boot in the behind and send them packing. Edited to say McGuire only played 26 seasons. Cap Anson and Nolan Ryan played 27.

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:27 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsFew things get me riled up more than the politics of the Hall of Fame. Mickey Vernon? In 20 seasons, he hit .286 with 172 home runs. Sure, he won two battling titles, but so did Pete Runnels. At least Vernon is still alive, unlike the other guys they're considering. If he gets in, at least he gets to appreciate it while he's still breathing, unlike quite a few other guys ...

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:29 PM

Posted By: JimBIf Magee were elected, I wonder how that would affect the value of his T206 error card. JimB

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:44 PM

Posted By: barrysloateThe T206 Magie would unquestionably bump up. But he's really a long shot.

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:51 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointi think reynolds has a decent shot at getting in but if he did i think it would hinge on how much they weigh in his post season numbers. 7-2 in the world series with 4 saves on top of that and a 2.79 ERA. if nothing else i think those numbers would be what gets him in if he does get in. compares to lemon and gomez on baseball-reference. but doesn't have the 20 win seasons those guys did.

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:57 PM

Posted By: Pcelli60No Frank Selee?

Archive

08-25-2008, 02:59 PM

Posted By: Jodi BirkholmThey put Deacon White on the ballot and fail to make any mention of his even more-talented brother, Will. Just another example in the litany of problems that the Hall of Fame has in recognizing the true "borderline" greats. None of the players mentioned in that release really should be elected. I guess we don't need this thread blowing up into another "who should be in, but isn't?" type of debate. We've had too many of those already, and many of our personal picks are, of course, biased to some degree.

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:00 PM

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm"No Frank Selee?" 1999 called. They have an invitation to Cooperstown they've been meaning to send you. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:06 PM

Posted By: Frank WakefieldEd Reulbach is nowhere in sight... sad. Red Schoendienst was around for a lot of ball games, too. It would be interesting to add up the played games, watched games (while on the roster on the bench but not on the field), coached games, and managed games. Mack and Stengel have to be up there. Red would be close.

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:09 PM

Posted By: AnonymousDon Zimmer might be up there between playing coaching and managing.

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:13 PM

Posted By: Sean BHNo Cravath? Crap...anyone want to buy any of his cards, I have a few.

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:20 PM

Posted By: Rob D.If we're suddenly using "games watched" as HOF criteria, you might as well put in Herb Score. After his 8-year career as a pitcher, he spent 30-plus years in the TV and radio booths for the Indians. And given how bad those teams were for about 26 of those years, Score should get credit for double-duty. So that's the equivalent of more than 60 years of watching baseball. Welcome, Herb.

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:40 PM

Posted By: JayDeacon White played for 20 years (5 years in National Association), had the first hit in the National Association (the first professional league), was a .312 lifetime hitter, and the best barehand catcher of his era. He deserves to be in the HOF but there are other pre-1900 players who deserve it more (Stovey, Van Haltren, Caruthers, Ryan, Browning, etc)

Archive

08-25-2008, 03:45 PM

Posted By: PaulI will never understand why Van Haltren and Caruthers are not in. Of those on the ballot, Carl Mays is probably the most deserving, though a case could be made for Reynolds. This is actually Mickey Vernon's second appearance on the ballot. I don't know what the screening committee sees in him. I'd much rather have Vada Pinson on my team, and I might pick Ron Fairly over Vernon.

Archive

08-25-2008, 04:00 PM

Posted By: Jodi BirkholmAgreed on Vernon. If there was a "Nice Guys HOF" he'd deserve to be in, but there isn't, so he doesn't. Well, we only went a short time before somebody brought up Reulbach. I'm amazed it took that long! Now where are all the Santo-worshippers? Aren't they supposed to be chiming in right about now? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I'm on the same page as Jay in that there are many other 19th century players who should be in before Deacon White, although my choices are different. What is it that I'm missing with Jimmy Ryan? His numbers don't impress me the way it has been impressed on me that they should! Personally, I'd put in some of the early umpires before they're forgotten altogether. I think that, out of any HOF exclusion (players included), Hank O'Day's is the greatest travesty of them all. Whenever early baseball history was being made, it seems as though O'Day played some role. Most people will not deny that Bill Klem had the most remarkable umpiring career. O'Day's career is only second to that of the so-called king of officiators. I often wonder why he was overlooked for so long, and all but forgotten now. Apparently he was not a very sociable man on or off the field, so perhaps failed to make any influential friends along the way.

Archive

08-25-2008, 04:55 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsI agree that Allie Reynolds was as good as Lefty Gomez ... just check the stats. But then, so was Lon Warnecke, and he not only has practically the same stats as Gomez, but he played during the same years, and nobody even remotely considers him a HOF candidate, which just goes to show how absurb the whole thing is. As for worshipping Ron Santo, I believe he's a HOFer, but I'm one of those guys who want to open the floodgates (or simply keep them open!). More than anybody, though, I want to see Minnie Minoso in Cooperstown ...

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:06 PM

Posted By: boxingcardmanI thought the failure to include Miller and Cy Rigler (umpire) last time around were ridiculous. Say what you want about Miller; to elect the dunsel [def: a part which serves no useful purpose. The term was used as an insult to Captain James T. Kirk during the war games test of the M-5 Multitronic Unit created by Dr. Richard Daystrom. Commodore Robert Wesley called Kirk Captain Dunsel, to the confusion of Dr. Leonard McCoy. Kirk's First Officer Spock explained the term only after Kirk had left the bridge, stung by the insult]. Kuhn is in but not the guy who kicked his can over and over and changed the structure of the sport far more profoundly than Kuhn ever did? Crappo. Charles "Cy" Rigler (May 16, 1882 - December 21, 1935) worked in the National League from 1906 to 1935. His total of 4,144 games ranked fourth in major league history when he retired, and his 2,468 games as a plate umpire still place him third behind his NL contemporaries Bill Klem (3,543) and Hank O'Day (2,710). Rigler is tied with O'Day for the second most World Series as an umpire (10), credited with instituting the practice of using arm signals when calling balls and strikes. Rigler was promoted to supervisor of the NL staff in December 1935 following the death of Hank O'Day, but died less than two weeks later. As far this crowd goes, nope. No one there I'd vote for. But I would not be surprised to see one or two slip in; the HOF needs bodies at the annual ceremony. Slapping in a few old farts is one way to get more interest. And FWIW, Mazeroski is a HOFer compared to quite a few of the guys in there and any of the ones on this list. He had a career .983 fielding percentage, led the National League in assists nine times, and holds the major league career record for double plays by a second baseman. Not too shabby...one of the best ever with the glove at a key glove position. Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:08 PM

Posted By: AnonymousHad some good raw numbers but my guess is that adjusted for the times, they weren't so special as to deserve the Hall. Surely there is a reason that after 100 years he isn't in.

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:14 PM

Posted By: DMcDGood call, Jodi. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6j83se" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/6j83se</a> (BBHoF: Versatile O'Day Was Baseball's First Great Arbiter) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_O'Day" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_O'Day</a> <img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/kawika_o_ka_pakipika/bbbofsfirstclass/thechicagonational/websize/ODay1.jpg">

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:18 PM

Posted By: AnonymousSo does this mean Mark Belanger, surely one of the best ever at the key position of SS, should be in the Hall too with his anemic BA?

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:21 PM

Posted By: J LevineMagee is a long shot but he was one of the best centerfielders of his era. Please put him...I need another Phillie HOFer (thank god I already own a Magie). BTW, Jimmy Reese was in baseball for a long long long time as well. Joshua

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:26 PM

Posted By: AnonymousPuh-leeze. Black Ink: Batting - 18 (123) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27) Gray Ink: Batting - 141 (111) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 35.9 (184) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 75.0 (236) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:28 PM

Posted By: AnonymousBlack Ink: Batting - 2 (587) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27) Gray Ink: Batting - 111 (187) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 144) HOF Standards: Batting - 29.9 (274) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50) HOF Monitor: Batting - 87.5 (184) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:33 PM

Posted By: Anthony S.Peter, Let's assume for the sake of argument that I'm a bit dim. What do "black ink" and "gray ink" mean?

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:39 PM

Posted By: AnonymousBlack-Ink Test All-Time and Active Leaders Named so because league leading numbers are traditionally represented with Boldface type. The definition for the test that I'm using here was written up in Bill James's The Politics of Glory, p. 65-67. The essential point is to measure how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. This method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must lead the league in that category. Batting Statistics Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases One Point for games, at bats or triples Pitching Statistics Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts Note that Hall of Famers have a wide variety of values for the Black Ink Test, and the method is unforgiving of positional differences, but it is a neat little metric. Gray-Ink Test All-Time and Active Leaders Essentially the same as the Black-Ink above, but it counts appearances in the top ten of the league. For each appearance the values are below. As with the Black Ink, this method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8. To get a point you must be in the top 10 in the league in that category. Batting Statistics Four Points for home runs, runs batted in or batting average Three Points for runs scored, hits or slugging percentage Two Points for doubles, walks or stolen bases One Point for games, at bats or triples Pitching Statistics Four Points for wins, earned run average or strikeouts Three Points for innings pitched, win-loss percentage or saves Two Points for complete games, lowest walks per 9 innings or lowest hits per 9 innings One Point for appearances, starts or shutouts Hall of Fame Career Standards Test All-Time and Active Leaders This test gives a score of 50 for an average Hall of Famer, with 100 as the max (note Babe Ruth is over 100 due to my simplistic addition of his pitching and batting values), though mine are lower due to some difference in positional adjustments that I'll explain below. It is used to measure the overall quality of a player's career as opposed to singular brilliance (peak value). Also, I require a minimum of 20 points in this metric before the value is displayed for a player. Anything below that is meaningless. This can be found in James's book on p. 174-176. All values are for career marks, and I've required 1000 at bats or 500 IP for the rate stats to kick in. Batting Statistics One point for each 150 hits above 1500, limit 10. One point for each .005 of batting average above .275, limit 9 One point for batting over .300 One point for each 100 runs over 900, limit 8. One point for scoring more than .500 runs per game. One point for scoring more than .644 runs per game. One point for each 100 rbi's over 800, limit 8. One point for driving in more than .500 runs per game. One point for driving in more than .600 runs per game. One point for each .025 of slugging percentage above .300, limit 10 One point for each .010 of on-base percentage above .300, limit 10 One point for each 200 home runs. One point if home runs are more than 10% of hits. One point if home runs are more than 20% of hits. One point for each 200 extra base hits over 300, limit 5. One point for each 200 walks over 300, limit 5. One point for each 100 stolen bases, limit 5. James's version: Defensive value: 20 points for catcher, 16 - shortstop, 14 - second base, 13 - third base, 12 - center fielder, 6 - right fielder, 3 - left fielder, 1 - first baseman, 0 - designated hitter My version: Defensive value: same as that computed for similarity scores. On a 0-20 range. Pitching Statistics One point for each 10 wins over 100, limit 25. One point for each 20 games over .500, limit 10. For each of the following a minimum of 500 innings is required before these points are added. One point for each .013 of winning percentage above .500, limit 15. One point for each .20 of ERA below 4.00, limit 10. One point for each 200 strikeouts over 1000, limit 10. One point for each .30 of BB/9IP below 4.00, limit 10. One point for each .30 of H/9IP below 10.00, limit 10. One point for each 1000 innings above 1000, limit 5. One point for each 100 complete games above 200, limit 5. Changed from James's slightly One point for each 30 shutouts, limit 5. Changed from James's slightly Note that this system excludes relievers as there are no set standards for them. Hall of Fame Monitor All-Time and Active Leaders This is another Jamesian creation. It attempts to assess how likely (not how deserving) an active player is to make the Hall of Fame. It's rough scale is 100 means a good possibility and 130 is a virtual cinch. It isn't hard and fast, but it does a pretty good job. Here are the batting rules. Also, I require a minimum of 30 points in this metric before the value is displayed for a player. For Batting Average, 2.5 points for each season over .300, 5.0 for over .350, 15 for over .400. Seasons are not double-counted. I require 100 games in a season to qualify for this bonus. For hits, 5 points for each season of 200 or more hits. 3 points for each season of 100 RBI's and 3 points for each season of 100 runs. 10 points for 50 home runs, 4 points for 40 HR, and 2 points for 30 HR. 2 points for 45 doubles and 1 point for 35 doubles. 8 points for each MVP award and 3 for each AllStar Game, and 1 point for a Rookie of the Year award. 2 points for a gold glove at C, SS, or 2B, and 1 point for any other gold glove. 6 points if they were the regular SS or C on a WS team, 5 points for 2B or CF, 3 for 3B, 2 for LF or RF, and 1 for 1B. I don't have the OF distribution, so I give 3 points for OF. 5 points if they were the regular SS or C on a League Championship (but not WS) team, 3 points for 2B or CF, 1 for 3B. I don't have the OF distribution, so I give 1 points for OF. 2 points if they were the regular SS or C on a Division Championship team (but not WS or LCS), 1 points for 2B, CF, or 3B. I don't have the OF distribution, so I give 1 points for OF. 6 points for leading the league in BA, 4 for HR or RBI, 3 for runs scored, 2 for hits or SB, and 1 for doubles and triples. 50 points for 3,500 career hits, 40 for 3,000, 15 for 2,500, and 4 for 2,000. 30 points for 600 career home runs, 20 for 500, 10 for 400, and 3 for 300. 24 points for a lifetime BA over .330, 16 if over .315, and 8 if over .300. For tough defensive positions, 60 for 1800 games as a catcher, 45 for 1,600 games, 30 for 1,400, and 15 for 1,200 games caught. 30 points for 2100 games at 2B or SS, or 15 for 1,800 games. 15 points for 2,000 games at 3B. An additional 15 points in the player has more than 2,500 games played at 2B, SS, or 3B. Award 15 points if the player's batting average is over .275 and they have 1,500 or more games as a 2B, SS or C. Pitching Rules 15 points for each season of 30 or more wins, 10 for 25 wins, 8 for 23 wins, 6 for 20 wins, 4 for 18 wins, and 2 for 15 wins. 6 points for 300 strikeouts, 3 points for 250 SO, or 2 points for 200 or more strikeouts. 2 points for each season with 14 or more wins and a .700 winning percentage. 4 points for a sub-2.00 ERA, 1 point if under 3.00. 7 points for 40 or more saves, 4 points for 30 or more, and 1 point for 20 or more. 8 points for each MVP award, 5 for a Cy Young award, 3 for each AllStar Game, and 1 point for a Rookie of the Year award. 1 point for a gold glove. 1 point for each no-hitter. This is not currently included. 2 points for leading the league in ERA, 1 for leading in games, wins, innings, W-L%, SO, SV or SHO. Half point for leading in CG. 35 points for 300 or more wins, 25 for 275, 20 for 250, 15 for 225, 10 for 200, 8 for 174 and 5 for 150 wins. 8 points for a career W-L% over .625, 5 points for over .600, 3 points for over .575, and 1 point for over .525, min. 190 decisions. 10 points for a career ERA under 3.00, min 190 decisions. 20 points for 300 career saves and 10 points for 200 career saves. 30 points for 1000 career games, 20 for 850 games and 10 for 700 games. 20 points for more than 4,000 strikeouts, and 10 for 3,000 SO. 2 points for each WS start, 1 point for each relief appearance, and 2 for a win. 1 point for each LCS or LDS win.

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:43 PM

Posted By: SteveNo Joe Wood neither <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> Walter Johnson once said, "Can I throw harder than Joe Wood? Listen, my friend, there's no man alive can throw harder than Smoky Joe Wood!" Satchel Paige concurred, saying, "Smoky Joe could throw harder than anyone."

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:47 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonAlways so negative Peter.<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Seriously though, Gordon missed 2 of his prime years because of WWII and then came back and had a lousy season in 1946 so the Yankees dealt him for Reynolds. Surely he would have made a couple more AS teams and added to his numbers if he didn't miss those years. Still don't know if he should get in or not, but being a "winner" should count for something.

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:48 PM

Posted By: Steve DawsonNo Deacon Phillipe or Ed Reulbach either! <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14> Steve

Archive

08-25-2008, 05:49 PM

Posted By: AnonymousCoulda woulda shoulda. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Joe Wood won 117 games. Let's get real. And here is Smoky Joe according to, you guess it... Black Ink: Pitching - 17 (119) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 40) Gray Ink: Pitching - 91 (241) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 185) HOF Standards: Pitching - 39.0 (73) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50) HOF Monitor: Pitching - 67.5 (166) (Likely HOFer > 100)

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:07 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonYes coulda-shoulda-woulda, but if you average his prior years and add them to this totals it would be pretty darn close. He played in horrible right handed hitters parks yet still slugged .466(5th at the time) and retired second on the career home run list for second basemen, behind only Hornsby.

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:17 PM

Posted By: PaulPeter, just to clarify, I said that Vern Stephens was very underappreciated and that I collect his cards. But I also said I agreed he probably didn't belong in the Hall.

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:22 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointslightly off topic but speaking of joe wood and how hard he could throw, did you guys see the article floating on yahoo now about the 9 year old kid who throws so hard that his little league wants to ban him from pitching? put him in now.

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:31 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonSandy Koufax only won 168 games and never came back as an outfielder. Maybe if Wood had gotten shot up before every start(performance enhancer) like Koufax did he could have kept pitching.

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:36 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyI don't have any major problems with the grouping other than there are probably more deserving people (O'Doul, Mullane, Browning, Caruthers, etc.), but this is how I see them... Deacon White--Honestly, he should have been in the Hall a long time ago (along with Stovey & Mathews), he was one of the true pioneers starting in the National Association... basically ditto everything Jay Miller said above. Carl Mays--Had he not killed Ray Chapman he is already in the Hall of Fame. Deserving of being in there if you ask me. Bill Dahlen--Another great player that should have probably been enshrined years ago, with nearly 2500 hits. Wes Ferrell--was a great pitcher in his time, which unfortunately was also the most hitter freindly era in history. While his career ERA was right at 4.00 the league average over his career was almost an entire point higher. Six-time 20 game winner. He was also the better player of the two Ferrell brothers (his career BA is the same as his brothers, but he was a pitcher). And, probably most importantly he was consistently voted the best looking player during the 1930's by the female fans (then again so was Tony Mullane in his day so that may work against you getting into the Hall). Sherry Magee--Good player but there are probably a few more deserving, but wouldn't seem out of place in the Hall. Mickey Vernon-Good player, with 2500 career hits, with 2 years lost to the service. His stats were actually better than I had rememberred them being, but I still think there are more deserving players than Vernon. Allie Reynolds--Dominating pitcher, but only One-20 game season may be enough to keep him out but he is probably deserving to be in at some point, but aren't there enough Yankees already in the Hall? Bucky Walters--Good pitcher, Three-time 20-game winner, however he has 32 more losses than Ferrell and only 5 more wins. 198-160 just isn't quite good enough in my opinion. Joe Gordon--Tons of All-Star game appearances, but his #'s just don't seem to back up him being in the Hall. Vern Stephens--He is Bobby Doerr without Ted Williams to pull for him to be elected. Good player but probably just below the cut-off line in my opinion.

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:47 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyDon't be too hard on ole' Joe. He was basically Sandy Koufax without Sandy's "crappy years" attached to his statistics. Sandy was an incrediblly dominant pitcher for 4 years, a pretty good pitcher for 2, and a pretty crappy pitcher for 6. Of course I listed them in reverse order of when they happened. His first 6 years he had a 36-40 record. You take away those years and you have something close to Woods' career numbers. Woods was also a good hitter and lengthened his career playing in the field. Peter, players that don't have lengthy careers get killed when we overanalyze the #'s, but players like Billy Williams, Tony Perez, Don Sutton and Phil Neikro somehow are made to look good. Longevity is great but it isn't everything, especially when pitchers of Wood's era were asked to do things that their body just couldn't withstand (the innings pitched by those guys are rediculous compared to modern players) and there was no such thing as Tommy John surgery. -Rhett

Archive

08-25-2008, 06:58 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointsmokey joe was a great pitcher, no doubt. but i don't think its overstating to say that koufax's great years blew away wood's single great year in which he won 34 games. aside from that year his next highest total was 23. look at the differences between koufax's ERAs his final 6 seasons when compared to the league average. it's just incredible. not to mention koufax finished his career by going 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA and a Cy Young award. i just don't see any comparison at all between their careers. even though wood had a few good seasons, so did a lot of pitchers during his playing days. in the year he won 34, johnson won 33 and ed walsh won 27 and there were 8 other pitchers who won at least 20 games. i just don't think there is much of a comparison.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:01 PM

Posted By: AnonymousJoe Wood had one phenomenal year and a couple of pretty good years and that was it. Koufax had 5 phenomenal years and another very good one.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:06 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyWe have had the Koufax fight too many times to count here on the board. In my (and several other people's) opinion he is consistently given too much credit. He had some amazing years (4 to be exact) and some pretty lousy years. Yet, his name is consistently brought up in the "best pitchers of all time" converstions, which is almost as irritating as Nolan Ryan's name being in the same conversation. I admit Joe Wood isn't quite the pitcher Sandy was but he deserves more credit than people here give him. -Rhett

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:08 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointi just don't see how a guy who put up the numbers koufax did can be given too much credit.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:09 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyPeter, I have to beg to differ that Sandy had 5 great years, he had 4. His 14-7 year he had in 1962 with a 2.54 era would hardly be considered "great." Also, in regard to Wood, his career era is a 2.03, pretty tough to beat that. -Rhett Edited to add: Ali, what don't you understand? He did do great FOR 4 YEARS!!! He deserves credit for that, but not to be in the same breath as Johnson, Mathewson, etc.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:10 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonDodger stadium and the raised mound are two important factors that played favorably into Koufax's numbers. Year: Total/Home/Road 1963: 1.88/1.38/2.31 1964: 1.74/0.85/2.93 1965: 2.04/1.38/2.72 1966: 1.73/1.52/1.96

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:11 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointeven in koufax's 14-7 year he struck out 216 batters in only 184 innings. and in his lousy years his ERA was below league average in 4 of the 6. not to mention the no hitters and his 0.95 ERA in the world series.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:11 PM

Posted By: paulstrattondouble rubble

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:16 PM

Posted By: Frank Wakefield1. I think there are several folks in the Hall who should not be in. 2. I'm a Cardinals fan, and a bit biased toward them. 3. I saw Mr. Koufax pitch. 4. Mr. Koufax is deservedly in the Hall. Much more deservedly than some inductees over the last few years.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:28 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyFrank, I agree Koufax is rightfully in the Hall. His numbers are pretty dominating, albeit for a short time. As stated above, my problem is with Koufax is that people tend to throw his name out when speaking of the "best pitchers of all time", when nobody mentions Addie Joss or other "short timers" and when they do people bring up how short his career was. It just seems like there is a special "Sandy Koufax" clause that allows his name to be there when others aren't. -Rhett

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:35 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointi think it has a lot to do with the fact that koufax went out on top. i posted his final year numbers above. you don't see a lot of great dominating pitchers go out the way sandy did. also, you really have to look at the strike outs. he could blow anyone away. and that's not to say that a pitcher like joss or wood should be diminshed because they didn't pitch in strike out eras. lastly, i think koufax gets brought up in that discussion because a lot of people are still alive who saw him pitch. i don't think seeing addie joss pitch at his peak would have been anything like seeing koufax pitch at his.

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:54 PM

Posted By: Shawn ChambersNot to keep this thread derailed, but Koufax (I believe) definitely belongs and it's more than just the won-loss totals for his "five good years". The 3 Cy Youngs, 4 No Hitters including a perfect game, and 382 K's in a season cemented his reputation far beyond the won-loss record. I think as an overall package Smokey Joe deserves a HOF look, but I just can't compare his career to Koufax given all the things Sandy did in a short span. Now, back on track. Pete Browning! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Shawn

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:58 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointhaven't gone through the thread post by post, but did riggs stephenson get brought up yet? also on par with short but great careers. what was the story with him? why did he play so few games?

Archive

08-25-2008, 07:59 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanKoufax used "performance enhancers"? This is a joke, right?

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:05 PM

Posted By: AnonymousAccording to Ken Burns' Baseball, a cranky old timer said Koufax was the best pitcher he had ever seen. The guy knew a little bit and had some perspective. His name was Casey Stengel.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:07 PM

Posted By: AnonymousDizzy Dean. Very similar story.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:16 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonWell...sort of Jeff. The shots he took enabled him to perform, without them he couldn't have pitched. Anyway, Koufax was great and deservedly in the HOF and probably had 4 of the greatest years by any pitcher. My point was not to diminish what Koufax did, but to say if Wood could have shot up with cortisone he may have been able to continue pitching long enough to get into the HOF.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:22 PM

Posted By: AnonymousCy Young. Walter Johnson. Christy mathewson. Grover Alexander. Ed Plank. Somehow I don't think it was any harder to last back then.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:22 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPaul, cortisone can hardly be thrown into the same lot as steroids or HGH. There is a huge difference. Is Ben Gay also a PED? Cortisone does not help athletes play above their natural limitations, unlike steroids and HGH.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:24 PM

Posted By: AnonymousCortisone is a steroid.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:27 PM

Posted By: AnonymousOther than his off the charts season, he had a 23-17 and a 15-5. His other season were pedestrian. Come on.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:32 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonSo how would he have pitched with a sore arm? I'm thinking either not at all, or quite a bit less effectively. It clearly enhanced his performance since it enabled him to pitch relatively pain free.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:33 PM

Posted By: AnonymousIndeed, Koufax quit because he was sick of the effects of the cortisone injections.

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:44 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyPeter, you gotta be joking thinking that players then lasted as long as they do today, that may be the funniest thing I've ever heard on this forum! You had arm problems then and you were done. Were there some that lasted, yes! the lucky few were able to, however many pitchers then were good for few and done. Also Peter, you're right a 2.03 career era with a .672 winning percentage is pretty friggin' pedestrian. (tbob reference) Again, Sandy was great for a few seasons (srguably one of the best 4-year stretches ever by a pitcher). I'm done arguing about it, as we have been down this road many times. I just don't completely understand the Sandy Koufax fascination. -Rhett

Archive

08-25-2008, 08:51 PM

Posted By: AnonymousI think it is a combination of several things, one that those 4 years were just SO dominant (and he likely would have had a similar season in 62 had it not been cut short with a finger that split open); two the mystique from his quitting at the top of the world at age 30; and three his persona.

Archive

08-25-2008, 09:11 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanCortisone is a steroid but is not a muscle-building drug unlike anabolic steroids. And does anyone really think that Sandy Koufax pitched "pain-free?" As for Koufax's performance, his lifetime ERA was lower in comparison to the rest of the league than Christy Mathewson's was.

Archive

08-25-2008, 09:35 PM

Posted By: Rhett YeakleyJeff, I agree with you that cortisone is not what made Sandy Koufax great for the years he was great. Sandy belongs in the Hall of Fame with the other great pitchers. A guy that I have always felt doesn't get his due is Lefty Grove, the guy had an ERA a full 1.50 points below the league average during his career, finished with 300 wins and missed out on several seasons in the bigs as he was under strict contract with the Baltimore Orioles and wasn't allowed to leave, thus he started his career as a 25 year old Major League rookie. I'm sure Brad will agree with me on this one. Edited to add: Wow, we really took this thread off on a tangent, sorry as this was an interesting thread.

Archive

08-25-2008, 09:39 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonI said "relatively pain free", which is better than not at all, like Joe Wood.

Archive

08-25-2008, 09:48 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanRhett, I agree with you regarding Lefty Grove. Not sure why he's not on a short list of all-time greats. And Paul, it is well-documented that Koufax pitched through tremendous pain during the baseball season. I'm unsure where you found the basis for the assertion that he pitched "relatively pain-free." It's simply not true.

Archive

08-25-2008, 09:53 PM

Posted By: john/z28jd It was lower in difference between them but not percentage wise which is the real indicator when youre dealing with different eras. Mathewson's ERA was less than 75% of the leagues average while Koufax's was over 75% and that includes Mathewson's last 2 1/2 years when he was below league average,he didnt go out on top. If he did the difference would be even greater. I always said Koufax benefits so much from going out on top,if you could switch Doc Goodens career numbers so his last season was first and his first was last he would be in the hall of fame due to the Koufax comparison,now he has no chance. No one brings up Larry Corcoran but his 1880-84 seasons he went 170-83,pitched on 3 pennant winning teams and threw 3 no-hitters,then he blew out his arm from overwork. His numbers which are great are even skewed by the 1884 season when the White Stockings changed the rules on what consititutes a home run in their home park,the year Ned Williamson hit 27 homers and 3 of his teammates also hit over 20(something that didnt happen once in Cubs history for another 27 years). If he had those mediocre years thrown in so he reached the 10 year minimum it would be hard to keep him out of the hall but he was done after 8 years. No one calls him one of the greatest but its hard to find a much better 5 year stretch

Archive

08-25-2008, 09:59 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJohn, that's a good point re percentage of league ERA.

Archive

08-25-2008, 10:17 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonIf the shots didn't help him, then why did he take them? They helped him pitch with less pain than he otherwise would have, hence "relatively pain free". It's a given that almost all pitchers experience some sort of discomfort during/after a game. Again, my point was not to try to discredit your guy Koufax(you wouldn't let that happen anyway), but to add to Joe Wood's(and others like him) credibility.

Archive

08-25-2008, 11:20 PM

Posted By: Jodi BirkholmWood was amazing. No other pitcher ever came back from a debilitating injury with an incredible .366 batting average after converting to the outfield! I realize that he only played less than half a season that year, but still, that is one of the greatest cases of "turning a negative into a positive" in sports history! You have to love Howard Ellsworth Wood (and I still haven't seen him sign "Howard Ellsworth Wood" on anything !!!). And Adam, your making the case for Rigler only serves to strengthen mine for O'Day. More power to both of us! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> If you're fond of Rigler, what are your thoughts on Emslie? I don't see him as a HOF contender, but apparently the old-time sportswriters thought highly of him, as well as a couple of other even more obscure umps, as is evidenced in this snippet handily yanked from the jawls of Wikipedia (1946 Hall of Fame Balloting). I suspect Rawn will be into this for his own reasons: Roll of Honor The Hall of Fame Committee also announced the creation of a Roll of Honor which would be displayed at the museum, featuring the names of significant non-players in four areas. The committee announced 39 initial honorees: Managers Bill Carrigan Ned Hanlon Miller Huggins Frank Selee John Montgomery Ward Umpires Tommy Connolly Bill Dinneen Bob Emslie Billy Evans John Gaffney Tim Hurst Bill Klem Kick Kelly Tom Lynch Francis "Silk" O'Loughlin Jack Sheridan Executives Ernest S. Barnard Ed Barrow John E. Bruce John T. Brush Barney Dreyfuss Charles Ebbets August "Garry" Herrmann John A. Heydler Bob Quinn Art Soden Nicholas Young Sportswriters Walter Barnes (Boston) Harry Cross (New York) William Hanna (New York) Frank Hough (Philadelphia) Sid Mercer (New York) Tim Murnane (Boston) Frank Richter (Philadelphia) Si Sanborn (Chicago) John B. Sheridan (St. Louis) William Slocum (New York) George Tidden (New York) Joe Vila (New York)

Archive

08-26-2008, 06:24 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPaul, your 'logic' makes no sense. You conclude that Koufax took the cortisone shots which helped him pitch -- and therefore he pitched 'relatively pain free.' There is not a single shred of recorded evidence to support your novel theory. It's just wrong. Perhaps you should do some research before you post what you consider to be a fact. It only takes a few minutes; in fact I did it for you. Here's an excerpt from a Time magazine article which reported his abrupt retirement: "He missed half of the 1962 and 1964 seasons, took ice-cube-and-hot-water treatments before every pitching turn last year; even with pills and injections, he suffered so badly that any fan could see the agony on his face. His pitching arm eventually grew so crooked that he had to shorten his sleeves an inch on the left side." Koufax described how he felt during his last year on the mound: "It was a year," he said, "of a few too many shots, and a few too many pills. I was walking around sick to my stomach; I was half high on the mound. Fifteen or eighteen cortisone shots made the decision for me." Yeah, sounds like he was pitching 'relatively pain-free.' Looking forward to your next factual assertion.

Archive

08-26-2008, 07:22 AM

Posted By: Kenneth A. CohenIf one is to consider cortisone a performance enhancer - then aspirine should be considered such as well. Both are taken to curb inflamation. Maybe Smokey Joe indulged.

Archive

08-26-2008, 08:06 AM

Posted By: paulstratton You keep harping on my assertion of him pitching "relatively pain free", but you ignore everything else. I've "researched" enough to know he pitched in a lot of pain, that goes without saying, but he couldn't have pitched at all(or very limited) without the shots more than likely. Maybe I was wrong to say the shots reduced the pain, as the shots actually reduce the swelling which leads to the pain. Here's some excerpts from Glory of Their Times and quotes from Joe Wood. "I never pitched again without a terrific amount of pain in my right shoulder. Never again." "The zip was gone, the fastball just didn't hop anymore." "The pain was almost unbearable. After each game I'd have to lay off for a couple of weeks before I could even lift my arm up." "Nowadays a shot of CORTISONE would probably do the job in a flash..."

Archive

08-26-2008, 08:27 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanOk, so we've gone from "relatively pain-free" to "pitched in a lot of pain". That's good progress. I'm not sure about Joe Wood's medical background and his ability to determine the effects of cortisone on his shoulder. I can tell you with some personal experience that cortisone shots are not necessarily a fix for any and all arm problems. It may very well be that Wood's shoulder issues required something more or different than simply cortisone. Regardless, we'll never know. Wood did a lot of good things...but simply not enough. 1-2 great pitching years...a good batting average another year...obviously not enough to get into the HOF. Unfortunately, we'll never know how great he could have been even in a 5 year period.

Archive

08-26-2008, 08:38 AM

Posted By: Jodi BirkholmOne thing is for certain. In his all-too-brief spurt of brilliance, it sounds as though Wood was untouchable. Jeff, you're correct that a few non-consecutive seasons of wonder don't make for HOF candidacy, but this year marks the centennial of Wood's debut, and here we are still talking about him. He must have been something in his day.

Archive

08-26-2008, 08:38 AM

Posted By: AnonymousEasily in the top 5 pitchers of all time, possibly as high as 3. One of the great all time sports quotes was about him: "He could throw a lambchop past a wolf."

Archive

08-26-2008, 08:45 AM

Posted By: paulstrattonWill I ever live down "relatively pain free" in Lichtman's courtroom?<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> How about...the cortisone allowed him to pitch in LESS pain than he otherwise would have been able to had he not gotten shot up prior to his starts?

Archive

08-26-2008, 09:17 AM

Posted By: AlanI love Koufax as much as anyone, but I think he was over-rated in baseball history !!!

Archive

08-26-2008, 09:19 AM

Posted By: ali_lapointmaybe i and others who support wood and mathewson and johnson as being the best pitchers of all time differ on what "the best pitcher of all time" means. does the statement mean dominance? if so, what kind of dominance? mathewson and johnson, great as they were, dominated in a very different way than koufax did. they were contact pitchers. even in his best years strike out wise mathewson couldn't average a strike out per inning against professionals of an arguably lower caliber than they had become by the 1960s. it was a different time, no doubt, which means a different kind of game and dominance. when you look at koufax's numbers and the way in which he dominated the game during his career i don't think its too hard to see that he completely destroyed the league. and not only the national league, but the best teams from the american league in the world series when he pitched. the guy struck out and blew away everybody. and to me that is dominance in every facet of the word and in essence is why you can't not say that koufax was one of , if not the, most dominating pitcher in baseball history. from strike outs to ERA to wins and everything in between.

Archive

08-26-2008, 10:53 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPaul, never! Seriously, I would say that the cortisone and other treatments allowed him to pitch in excrutiating pain; without the shots and pills, etc. he would not have been able to move his arm at all. I think what makes Koufax so special to me is how he performed despite huge physical limitations. Despite pitching in tremendous pain he managed during his last two years to start 41 games each year, complete 27 of them each year and average about 330 innings each of these years. He also struck out over 1 guy per inning in his entire career and over his last two years his WHIP was .855 and .985. What is most amazing to me, however, was his performance in the 1965 World Series when he won 3 games, the last two of them complete game shutouts -- and his game 7 shutout was in Minnesota on 2 days rest! That is total domination at the highest level.

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:08 AM

Posted By: paulstrattonRead all about it...Lichtman wilts under the pressure and offers a concession!! So we've gone from thinking "performance enhancers" were a joke to at least admitting he couldn't have pitched at all without the shots, now that's progress!<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:14 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanCortisone is not a performance "enhancer" at all; there's a reason why it is treated differently than anabolic steroids and HGH by Major League Baseball.

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:24 AM

Posted By: ali_lapointit is absolutely ridiculous to call it a "performance enhancer". it doesn't make you pitch better and has no effect on your level of talent. a mediocre pitcher is not going to get a shot of cortisone and turn into sandy koufax. if anything it is a "performance enabler". the whole discussion is utterly ridiculous in the first place. what about tetnus shots? are they performance enhancers too? or the TB vaccine?

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:31 AM

Posted By: paulstrattonI guess we'll just agree to disagree. I'm done discussing Koufax, who I said before is deservedly in the HOF and had probably the greatest 4 season run in modern history.

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:37 AM

Posted By: ali_lapointjust dont understand your stance on cortisone.

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:46 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJeff- Koufax was actually 2-1 in the 1965 World Series, but why quibble. I saw him pitch, even in person once at Shea Stadium, and he was as unhittable as anyone I have ever seen. He did pitch with incredible pain and he is one of the very worthiest HOFers. He is an icon and a cult figure in baseball, and it's sad that he had to quit at 30.

Archive

08-26-2008, 12:06 PM

Posted By: AnonymousRemember Dock Ellis who pitched a no hitter while tripping on LSD? <a href="http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ellis.asp" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.snopes.com/sports/baseball/ellis.asp</a>

Archive

08-26-2008, 12:17 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonI agree it is not on the same level as HGH or anabolic steroids, it still "enhanced" and/or "enabled" his ability to pitch. I actually have more respect for him for doing it, not less as it may seem. Modern players just take too much garbage for what they do to stay in the game, or stay at their best performance level.

Archive

08-26-2008, 12:33 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDoc Ellis pitching a no-hitter on acid is still one of those feats that I am not sure ever happened, even if he says it's true.

Archive

08-26-2008, 01:07 PM

Posted By: Donny MuthHmmm... It seems like the deal I made several weeks ago for a Mickey Vernon auto may pan out to be a better deal than I had originally planned. Vernon was my father's favorite player so I get his cards when I can anyways, but if by some chance he does get into the HOF then that will just give me another reason to collect his cards. In all honesty though, I agree with what one poster said that the HOF should probably be weeding out marginally deserving players. Maybe while they're at it they can also go ahead and decide to prevent any and all steroid users from getting to the HOF. I'd rather see most any average player (including those on the list at the top of this thread) in the Hall rather than even one player who's broken records or boosted his career by being jacked up on 'roids.

Archive

08-26-2008, 01:43 PM

Posted By: keywayMiller!!!. Why would anyone think that he should be in the HOF? What did he actually do to be there? He scrwed up the game of baseball by giving it to the greed players who now could care less about the game and only think of how they can line their pockets. The HELL with Miller, he's a BUM.

Archive

08-26-2008, 04:21 PM

Posted By: Chris CountsMarvin Miller helped baseball players win the right to play where they want to play, which in my estimation, is a very American ideal. Can you imagine if a doctor, a taxi driver or a carpenter was required to work for one employer his entire life? What if a waitress or a policeman or a cook wanted to move to another state and was told they couldn't, that they had to live in one state as long as they worked? And that they had essentially no bargaining rights? Yes, I believe there are greedy players out there ... just like there are greedy owners. But that is capitalism, which for all its pitfalls, is an economic system most Americans generally support. As for Miller being worthy of induction into the Hall of Fame, I believe Bowie Kuhn was voted in as a slap against Miller. There is no way his impact on the game was more important than Miller's. Miller ran circles around him, and that's one reason why free agency now exists ...

Archive

08-26-2008, 06:58 PM

Posted By: AnonymousAs un-American as it was, there is something to be said for the days when there was a great deal of continuity in the roster from year to year instead of the rent-a-team we have now. E.g., I think you can count on one hand the number of Red Sox who were on the 2004 W.S. winners.

Archive

08-26-2008, 07:02 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointcareful what you wish for. a really bad team would be really bad for a long time if there was little roster wiggle room.

Archive

08-26-2008, 07:42 PM

Posted By: AnonymousYeah free agency has done wonders for the Royals. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-26-2008, 07:44 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointit did in the 80s.

Archive

08-26-2008, 07:47 PM

Posted By: AnonymousActually, I think most of those guys like Brett came up through their farm system, although I could be wrong.

Archive

08-26-2008, 07:50 PM

Posted By: ali_lapointyou could be right. but its not free agency that made the royals bad. it was the lack of money put into the team.

Archive

08-26-2008, 08:02 PM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsJodi: I happen to like Joe Wood as well, but he wasn't the first pitcher to resurrect a career by moving to the outfield. Elmer Smith was Joe Wood 20 years earlier. Kevin <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithel01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithel01.shtml</a>

Archive

08-26-2008, 09:11 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)Deacon White and Bill Dahlen both belong. Both demonstrated sustained excellence and were also among the very best players in the game for some of their respective careers. Players like Joe Wood were among the very best for a short time but did not demonstrate sustained excellence. Wood's greatness was ended by injury -- he made a valiant comeback as a good but never excellent outfielder. White is an especially egregious omission from the Hall. He was a great pioneer and a great player -- either one of which should have justified his induction many years ago. His brother Will was also a tremendous player. Will was a pitcher who had a fairly short career (really only 7 seasons) and really dominated for a little while putting up great numbers like only a 1/2 man rotation 19th century ace could. To me he belongs in the same group as other great forgotten 19th century Pitchers who all have the same sort of (strong) case for induction such as Mike McCormick, Tommy Bond and Larry Corcoran and my personal favorite Bobby Caruthers.

Archive

08-26-2008, 11:24 PM

Posted By: Jodi BirkholmKevin, You learn something new every day. I certainly was aware of "the first" Elmer Smith, but not of the similarities shared with Wood. Thanks for the enlightenment! Interesting facts like these are always appreciated. As a treat, here is a rare example of Elmer's signature: <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1219814606.JPG"> Brian, Thanks to you for agreeing with me on Will White. Nobody ever seems to even listen when I plead his case. As for Deacon, I like his numbers and his pioneering role in the game, but never will think of him as a HOF contender. Glad I still have one of the 3-5 known Deacon autographs just in case (and wish like heck I hadn't sold my other one)! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

08-27-2008, 06:18 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)Jodi, and anyone else who wants to know more about why Deacon White belongs in the Hall of Fame, I urge you to check out the posting from the "Hall of Merit" project a the baseballthinkfactory.org. If you peruse these links you will find too much information (primarily Sabremetric in nature) about White's value/merit in the larger context of when he played. <a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/catchers/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/catchers/</a> <a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1898_ballot_discussion" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1898_ballot_discussion</a> <a href="http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_hall_of_merit_players_not_in_the_hall_of_f ame_group_3/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_hall_of_merit_players_not_in_the_hall_of_f ame_group_3/</a> Chief Executive Summary (in other words even shorter): In (too) brief -- based mostly on my recollections from about 5 yrs ago: White was clearly the best Catcher before Buck Ewing and then became a top tier 3rd baseman. His on the field excellence actually preceded the advent of the National League and the National Association. In fact, excluding the National Association and everything before, White was basically a 3B. Even in this capacity (and Catching is and was a far more valuable field position) White still warrants HOF induction. Like other 19th century position players his career numbers suffer because of the few games played. In White's case his best seasons were in the 1870s when they played the fewest games. Go to White's page on baseball-reference.com and press the link "neutralize" above his hitting stats and then think about his career numbers given that he played the most dangerous position of all during some of his best years and that the protective equipment was non-existent. There were no "tools of ignorance" -- just ignorance. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitede01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitede01.shtml</a>

Archive

08-27-2008, 07:10 PM

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)I don't think they exactly resurrected their careers (no injuries I am aware of) but Cy Seymour and George Van Haltren also started out as Pitchers and then moved to the outfield before Wood got to the majors. <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seymocy01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seymocy01.shtml</a> <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml</a> Neither of them were close to Wood as a Pitcher (not many ever were) but both of them became great outfielders (ie. they could really hit). Van Haltren is a strong Hall of Fame candidate and Seymour was one of the best players in baseball for a short time. In terms of Pitching, Babe Ruth is closest to Wood. He didn't resurrect his career -- he voluntarily went from being one of the game's best Pitchers to its best outfielder/hitter (Ever).

Archive

08-27-2008, 07:23 PM

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth81 HR, 1118 RBI, 2394 Hits, .277. Not exactly overwhelming are they.

Archive

08-27-2008, 09:58 PM

Posted By: Jodi BirkholmLet's not use Babe Ruth in our collective pondering. Comparing the Babe to a borderline HOF candidate who has been overlooked for over 70 years is akin to extolling the virtues of a Deusenberg against those of an Edsel. The Edsel was a mighty fine car, ahead of its time, but only a select few will ever realize and appreciate that. Most folks would tell you that the Edsel may have had power and performance, but it wasn't streamlined like the rest of the cars of its era. It had a clumsy, less graceful appearance when placed alongside its beautiful peers. It's taken some classic car enthusiasts half a century to realize how special the Edsel really was, but most of the world can't see the car's underlying beauty. Ergo, certain 19th century players are not in the Hall. Most of them will never be enshrined. Unless there is a huge campaign such as what provoked the recent Negro Leaguer love fest, we'll be lucky to see even one of them inducted.