1914 Cracker Jack Hall of Famers?

[sniffy5]

The 1914 set is filled with HOF'ers. And my question goes out to many learned baseball historians that post here, not just to CJ collectors:Which of the players from the set are top tier Hall of Famers, and which players are a bit iffy? I know this is subjective and opinions vary. And of course Matty, Cobb, Honus, Alexander, and Speaker among others are no doubts. But what of the others? Players voted in by the Veteran Committees over the years for instance?

[GregMitch34]

By usual measure, the iffys I guess would be the usual Jennings, Clarke, Carey, Huggins, Wheat, Bresnahan, and so on...however, partly because they were less stellar, in many of those cases fewer cards survive and they are more pricey. There are dozens of nice Collins around, for example, but try to find a nice Huggins. So there's a swell balance there. It makes nearly all of them with high value.

[sniffy5]

All true Greg. Bit I'm not even talking about the cards or the values. I just don't know enough about baseball in the early part of the century. I guess stats don't tell everything, so a person has to have a real feel for that era. Like, if Marquard was so good, why did it presumably take the publishing of a book to get elected in 1971? Or Bresnahan in '45? Are guys like them "real" HOF's?

[refz]

As far as guys like huggins and rickey I feel they blossomed more as a managers/owners than players. Quite a few hofers held more important roles in mlb.

[GregMitch34]

There will always be different classes of HOFers. Some get in based on hype around them. Drysdale, for example, only got in because of great era for Dodgers and Koufax tandem. There were a bunch of great but maybe not HOFer players who got in a few decades ago mainly because--it's said--Frankie Frisch was on veterans' committee and was getting his old pals in. You look at their stats and they are all strong and you can make a case but--marginal, maybe. And you can't judge it by how quickly they made it. It used to be that even strong candidates had to wait a few years to get in but now fans demands induction at the immediate five-year mark or something's wrong. Now you've got the issue of inflated stats in steroid era.

[sniffy5]

Are Tinker, Evers, and Chance no doubters?

[refz]

Tinker is very debatale. I give tinker credit playing in the tough deadball era, hitting matthewson well, and winning a ring. He had an average career and if played in any other era no way would he be hof worthy.

[GregMitch34]

Whether or not they (Tinker, Evers, Chance) are Hall worthy, and there is some debate, their iconic shared status has made them semi-elite. Their t206 cards are valued above most HOFers....

[sniffy5]

Thanks Danny. That is exactly the kind of insight I am looking for, even though I realize it is only an opinion. But it is an informed opinion. Thanks! I think it is a bit difficult for us to be able to determine whether or not certain players that retired 100 years ago were the absolute best players of their generation or any generation (which is what a HOF'er should be). Maybe at the time they retired they were among the best in the short history of the game. But the intervening 100 years of better players shows that in the grand scheme, some were only solid players, but not HOF's. Maybe that's why no one (save forum members) has ever heard of Harry Hooper or Roger Bresnahan.