[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

One of my main collections is an All-time Cubs collection (not anywhere near as high quality as other collectors) that required a lot of deep digging to find players I personally gate-kept as worthy.

You're not going to find a lot of Hal Jeffcoat fans in Cubs history, but the guy is notable because he went from 6 years of playing OF (not well) to pitching (also, not well) for the Cubs for a couple years over the course of a winter off. He was traded to CIN where he continued to pitch for a few years. Maybe if he was effective at either he would be more well known, but that's a unique Cubs player.

Deep diving into the history of the Cubs has extremely deepened my knowledge of the team beyond the existing literature.

Exactly! That's what makes it fun!

I suppose that is why I enjoy diving into the history (mainly newspaper articles) of 19th century players. I've read the wonderful reports from Ed Williamson while on the 1888 Spalding World Tour, and I've read the well documented eccentricities of Dude Esterbrook, as well as pouring over the existing stats of all 19th century players.

While I write this I find myself comparing the careers of King Kelly and Paul Hines. Both have wonderfully fascinating stories, and while Kelly was definitely the media "star" of his day and had a great bat, Paul Hines was the better overall player (just as good of a bat at times, and a MUCH better fielder). If we were picking in a schoolyard and I had my choice, it would be Hines, 10 times out of 10.