I would agree that there are deserving 19th century candidates, but not so much with the 20th century candidates on the ballot (Even though he's not from this era -- I would rank Dave Concepcion ahead of Marty Marion).
To me, the most deserving pre-integration era candidate is not on the ballot. Cecil Travis hit over .300 every year but one from from 1934 to 1941, and made three all star teams. He peaked in 1941 at the age of 28 when he hit .359. In that year in which Joe D. had his hitting streak and Ted Williams batted .406, Travis lead the AL in hits (and was second in batting average ahead of Dimaggio). He was on pace to have a legitimate shot at 3,000 hits.
Travis entered the Army the next year, fought in the Battle of the Bulge and was not the same player when he returned almost four years later.
I can certainly understand the argument against players who were on pace for Hall of Fame careers and fell just short because of injury, but how can you hold fighting for your country against a player when deciding Hall of Fame worthiness? What better definition of a Hall of Famer is there than Cecil Travis?
Of course he is also hurt by the fact that he was playing for Washington.
Greg
|