Peter
Come on,
Cecil Travis lost most of 4 of his prime years serving our country in WWII. IMO, he gets credit for that. He also suffered frostbite during the battle of the bulge, which pretty well wiped him out post-war.
He was a hell of a shortstop. I don't think that is arguable. It seems to me that he shouldn't be debited too hard for losing 700+ hits and all of the other stats that the HOF deems important due to his service in WWII. IMO, losing the statistics that at least arguably would result in a HOF selection because you are serving our country is materially different from, for example, losing the statistics because you got hurt and couldn't finish your career. Getting hurt is part of the risk you assume when you play the game. Having to go fight on behalf of our country for 4 years isn't really a risk you assume when you sign up to play baseball, again IMO.
I'm not really sure how to compensate for that, but I don't think that the loss of 4 prime seasons due to military service is meaningless when you are looking at a statistical reason to elect, or not elect, a given candidate. Statistically, Cecil Travis got screwed by circumstances that were not personally related or baseball related. He was not a better or worse baseball player because of anything he did, or anything that was a result of the profession in which he engaged. He just lost 4 years.
In his case, I would submit that the statistics are far less important than they are in most when it comes to the HOF discussion. IMO, the question in my mind is, had he played those 4 seasons, would he be HOF worthy? Given that his candidacy is being discussed without them, I have to conclude that he would have been.
Kenny
|