How is Jimmy Ryan not a HOF'er?
 

How is Jimmy Ryan not a HOF'er? His stats are comparable to a lot of his counterparts from his era, 2,500 hits, hit a decent amount of HR's over his career, ton of steals...seems like to me IMO should be a HOF'er...

his stats compare to Mark Grace. Lots of doubles too.

That's like comparing apples and oranges to different eras, totally different standards today.

King Kelly is in, John Ward is in, Buck Ewing..., the list goes on and on and on. Ryan DWARFS them in statistical comparison pretty much.

Ryan definitely looks like a good candidate per the HOF monitors on B-R.com. George Van Haltren looks like another that should be considered.

.308 in that Era was almost average.. there were quite a few guys hitting over .400 per season in that Era

I see that he only led the league in hits 1 time, 2Bs 1 time, HRs 1 time, slug% 1 time, (all in the same year), never led the league in any other offensive category in his 18 year career, .......solid player, but not even close to HOF for that Era.

Maybe he wasn't that of a "big name" player, but from the looks of it, looks like he was a hell of a player. I don't know how his history was with the veterans committee, but should be in.

Not sure if I agree here, at least from a B-R.com perspective. OPS+ does a good job of normalizing data and at 124 he matches up well against other dead ball era HOFers: Jimmy Collins, Ewing, King Kelly, Monte Ward and so on.

Just don't know if he had the popularity, but he did have the numbers. His career totals are great from his era. Anyone know how he stacked up with the voting?

If you look at the HOF vote totals in 1936 for 19th century players, you will see what appear to be anomalies. For example, Herman Long received 16 votes. Ryan, Bid McPhee, and Vic Willis, to name a few, received no votes. I think this type of voting result, that on the surface seems odd, speaks to the mindset of earlier HOF voters. Today, because of the availability of a lot of statistical data, we rely too heavily on it. Earlier HOF voters relied more on the intangibles of a player as well as first hand information, i.e they either saw the player play or knew someone who did and placed a large weight on this observation. Statistics do not tell the entire value of a player in the eyes of his peers and supporters. This said, many early players touted for the HOF today were not that highly regarded in their day and some that were highly regarded have fallen by the wayside because of our infatuation with the accumulation of certain numbers and statistics as a sole measure of worth. This explains the election, to some degree, of McPhee,Willis, Hanlon, George Davis, etc. versus Harry Stovey, Deacon White, and yes, Ross Barnes.

Good points, Gary. Might as well throw Pete Browning in there as well............

When he was 25 he led league in hits, doubles, HR, slugging and stole 60 bases. He made $2300 that year. The Sox rewarded him with $700 raise for that season, boosting him to three grand the next year.

Times sure have changed.

I have to wonder at this point, if any of the HOF voters have any way to determine if pre-1920 players should be in the Hall or Not. It's such a different game now than it was then and there is very little video or even advanced stats from the era to help out.

There is no doubt many 19th century players deserve consideration, particularly from the pre-professional and earliest major league years. The period from 1845-1880 is very underrepresented. The standards applied to other eras don't adequately apply to these early players. These are the pioneers that contributed to developing baseball into the game we see played today. The seasons had fewer games and the rules were different, but the teams that competed were the best of their time and the players on these teams should be judged and honored accordingly. In every other facet of our society we honor those who were first as heroes and icons. For some reason, in baseball we seem to diminish the impact and status of the game's pioneers.