[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.