Should these 4 19th Century players be in the HOF?

[Rad_Hazard]

The Bonds, Clemens, Rose thread gave me the idea for this. I'd love to know your thoughts on these 19th Century HOF snubs.

NOTE: I intentionally left Bill Dahlen off this list because he is the most "slam dunk" HOF candidate left who played in the 19th century. Charlie Buffinton and Tommy Bond were also names I was thinking of adding, but ultimately came down to these 4.

[Kenny Cole]

Yes to all four.

[oldjudge]

Yes to McCormick, no to the others. McCormick's stature is documented by his multiple cards in the 1887 Old Judge short number set (Kelly is the other player with multiple cards). Personally, because of the importance of catchers in the game during this period, I favor Charlie Bennett over the other candidates. I also like Harry Stovey and Bob Caruthers a lot. With the new HOF voting system all are long shots though.

[packs]

Glasscock is a HOFer. Harry Stovey too.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Yes to McCormick, no to the others. McCormick's stature is documented by his multiple cards in the 1887 Old Judge short number set (Kelly is the other player with multiple cards). Personally, because of the importance of catchers in the game during this period, I favor Charlie Bennett over the other candidates. I also like Harry Stovey and Bob Caruthers a lot. With the new HOF voting system all are long shots though.

I completely agree with Bennett, but left him off this list since I had a post a few months back that was more in depth regarding his HOF status. The poll was pretty split on his induction if I remember correctly.

[ejharrington]

Yes to McCormick only.

[darwinbulldog]

McCormick yes is the only one I feel strongly about either way. There are 66 pitchers in the Hall of Fame already, and McCormick was better than two-thirds of them.

[BobbyStrawberry]

I voted Yes to all but Mullane, although he has a case too. Are any of these guys ever going to get in, though? It seems to me that we'll have a lot more Harold Baineses making it before the early years are properly acknowledged...

[scotgreb]

I voted yes to all -- and would for several other 19th century players. Not that I am a "big hall" guy but I feel like the importance of this generation is a little under-represented in the HOF.

Glasscock, Jack N28 PSA 4 43006856.jpg Mathews, Bobby 1888 N172 JMO Authentic.jpg McCormick, Jim 1887 N172 Portrait SGC70 1227643-091.jpg Mullane, Count 1887 N172 OJ PSA 4 63660461.jpg

[mrreality68]

I would like to see all of them in. But at this point I doubt any will get in.

But if I could only choose 1 it would be McCormick

[scotgreb]

For those that are not familiar, SABR votes on its "Overlooked 19th Century Base Ball Legend" annually -- since 2009. Following is a link with all the information . . .

https://sabr.org/sabr-overlooked-19t...seball-legends

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

I voted yes to all -- and would for several other 19th century players. Not that I am a "big hall" guy but I feel like the importance of this generation is a little under-represented in the HOF.

Beautiful cards! I forgot to post mine.

[G1911]

McCormick and Mullane pitched a similar number of innings with almost the same ERA+. They have very similar value, I think. Interesting that they are seen so different thus far with McCormick clocking double the support.


McCormick and Mullane are a yes, Glasscock and Mathews are borderline. I’d probably vote for Glasscock too. Mathews was about league average, a Jim Kaat type of compiler. I wouldn’t be offended by his selection but probably would lean to ‘just misses’. None of the 4 have gotten a fair, serious look by the Hall.

[Rad_Hazard]

I kinda assumed this would be the case as McCormick has the best resume, while Mullane has the worst out of this group, but in my opinion they all have HOF credentials.

McCormick was absolutely next level and the only reason he isn't in the Hall is because he didn't get to that coveted 300 win number.

Mullane got close to 300 as well and had great career numbers, but not nearly as strong as McCormick.

Mathews has a TON of history on his side as well as falling only 3 wins short of 300 wins, which if he would have got them, he would already be in the Hall. I'm not trying to focus on that number too much, it's just that early voters would have and it seems to be the only benchmark as to who got in and who didn't as far as 19th century pitching.

Glasscock, to me, is a HOF lock. Best all around player of his era. Great bat, absolutely insane glove and career stats to boot. He was by far and away the best SS in 19th century baseball, better than Dahlen.

[oldjudge]

Glasscock, to me, is a HOF lock. Best all around player of his era. Great bat, absolutely insane glove and career stats to boot. He was by far and away the best SS in 19th century baseball, better than Dahlen.

George Wright might disagree and George would be right.

[Svabinsky78]

Speaking of Dahlen, I really had no idea how good of a player he was until I took more of a deep dive into baseball history...

When Dahlen retired he held the all-time record for games played and ranked among the top ten in nearly every offensive category in major league history....not to mention that he was one of the best defensive short stops of his era...

I think with some of these old timers, they just fell into complete obscurity with the passage of time, tucked away on some shelf in the backroom of some abandoned warehouse....the GREATS like Ruth, Cobb, Wagner, Johnson, Young, Mathewson hung around/withstood the test of time, but many others fell into obscurity....

I read somewhere that he did not fare well on the ballot early on, in large part, because of his cantankerous personality....and as more time passed, he just fell into obscurity as the game changed, new superstars came on to the scene, offensive #s increased across the board, etc.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

McCormick and Mullane pitched a similar number of innings with almost the same ERA+. They have very similar value, I think. Interesting that they are seen so different thus far with McCormick clocking double the support.

2 x 49 = 59?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

2 x 49 = 59?

At the time I said it, as I do not have the magical ability to tell the future, it was 14 McCormick and 7 to Mullane. That is double the support.

[bigfanNY]

Yes to all 4. Clearly many of the stars who played during Baseballs first 25 years who absolutely belong in the Hall of fame. Yes the numbers dont match up to the modern game but the rules evolved as did the equipment and the fields. About time we recognized the men who built our national game. And for the most part were left were left in the dust if they were injured.

[Rad_Hazard]

I'd love to hear the opinions from the NO's, especially for McCormick and to a lesser extent Glasscock.

[SteveMitchell]

Yes to all four.

[glynparson]

I’m fine with all 4 I am easy though with hall
Of fame support. I like a big hall.

[Fred]

If Bobby Mathews had 3 more W's, he'd already be in. 297 Wins (.545), sheesh. Mathews played in a few different leagues - was a true pioneer of the game. He had 2 x 30 and 2 x 20 loss seasons.

Mullane is at 284 lifetime wins (.563). Missed 1885 (I think because of contract jumping). He had 3 x 30+ wins a season prior to 1885 and 2 x 30+ wins in the next two seasons. I'm going to guess he'd probably had won at least 15 games in 1885 and that would have put him at the magic 300 wins and enshrinement. Ok, most of the games were AA but still, that's a load of Ws. He had 5 x 20 loss seasons.

McCormick - at 265 wins (.553) had a 40 loss season along with a couple 30 loss seasons (not to mention the 4 x 20 loss seasons). But he was pretty much an NL player.

Bottom line, those guys threw a ton of innings in a season back then so those 20, 30 and 40 loss seasons aren't too bad, but 40 losses is still a lot (McCormick did win 20 games in that 40 loss season).

So many 19th century players that probably should be enshrined. The HOF should look towards a pioneer section. How the hell is Ross Barnes not in?

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by Fred

If Bobby Mathews had 3 more W's, he'd already be in. 297 Wins (.545), sheesh. Mathews played in a few different leagues - was a true pioneer of the game. He had 2 x 30 and 2 x 20 loss seasons.

Mullane is at 284 lifetime wins (.563). Missed 1885 (I think because of contract jumping). He had 3 x 30+ wins a season prior to 1885 and 2 x 30+ wins in the next two seasons. I'm going to guess he'd probably had won at least 15 games in 1885 and that would have put him at the magic 300 wins and enshrinement. Ok, most of the games were AA but still, that's a load of Ws. He had 5 x 20 loss seasons.

McCormick - at 265 wins (.553) had a 40 loss season along with a couple 30 loss seasons (not to mention the 4 x 20 loss seasons). But he was pretty much an NL player.

Bottom line, those guys threw a ton of innings in a season back then so those 20, 30 and 40 loss seasons aren't too bad, but 40 losses is still a lot (McCormick did win 20 games in that 40 loss season).

So many 19th century players that probably should be enshrined. The HOF should look towards a pioneer section. How the hell is Ross Barnes not in?

+1

[Schwertfeger1007]

Absolutely Jack Glasscock

McCormick I'm on the fence

I love Mullane but he never led the league in Wins or ERA but does hold the record for most wild pitches in MLB history by a wide margin, so no...but how cool is this card???

Mathews no

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Schwertfeger1007

Absolutely Jack Glasscock

McCormick I'm on the fence

I love Mullane but he never led the league in Wins or ERA but does hold the record for most wild pitches in MLB history by a wide margin, so no...but how cool is this card???

Mathews no

I think Glasscock and McCormick are absolute locks for the hall. McCormick has better pitching stats than a lot of HOF pitchers, and has the strongest case of any of the 4 IMO.

Mullane is a bit tougher, he's more of an accumulated stats (primarily Wins) kind of guy. (BTW that card is beautiful!)

As for Mathews, he has solid career numbers, and his historical/pioneer contributions are many. He's an easy HOFer IMO.

Originally Posted by Fred

If Bobby Mathews had 3 more W's, he'd already be in. 297 Wins (.545), sheesh. Mathews played in a few different leagues - was a true pioneer of the game. He had 2 x 30 and 2 x 20 loss seasons.

Mullane is at 284 lifetime wins (.563). Missed 1885 (I think because of contract jumping). He had 3 x 30+ wins a season prior to 1885 and 2 x 30+ wins in the next two seasons. I'm going to guess he'd probably had won at least 15 games in 1885 and that would have put him at the magic 300 wins and enshrinement. Ok, most of the games were AA but still, that's a load of Ws. He had 5 x 20 loss seasons.

McCormick - at 265 wins (.553) had a 40 loss season along with a couple 30 loss seasons (not to mention the 4 x 20 loss seasons). But he was pretty much an NL player.

Bottom line, those guys threw a ton of innings in a season back then so those 20, 30 and 40 loss seasons aren't too bad, but 40 losses is still a lot (McCormick did win 20 games in that 40 loss season).

So many 19th century players that probably should be enshrined. The HOF should look towards a pioneer section. How the hell is Ross Barnes not in?

I couldn't agree more! Ross Barnes is the batting equivalent to Bobby Mathews. Both played during the same early days of baseball and Barnes absolutely dominated every aspect of the game (offense and defense) from 1871-1876, it's pretty astonishing.

Based on their solid stats and historical contributions, Barnes and Mathews are in the same conversation IMO, and should be in the hall in one way, shape, or form.

[Misunderestimated]

Mathews and Mullane ran up their numbers in lesser leagues while McCormick's value is almost entirely from the NL. A lot of Mathews wins are from the National Association (1871-75) which is not recognized as a major league (probably it should be....
https://www.thenationalpastimemuseum...-major-league/

Mullane stared in the American Association which was generally inferior to the National League. There is just one player in the HOF who primarily played in the American Association, Bid McPhee.
Also, as noted above, McCormick seems to have been regarded as one of the best pitchers of his time I don't think that's true of Mathews at all. Not so sure about Mullane either.

Mullane also gets docked for a story (perhaps apocryphal) about mistreating Moses Fleetwood Walker who was briefly his catcher. There is also a story that he pitched with both hands -- so he was a "switch-pitcher."

Glasscock (what a name !) would be the only SS in the Hall of Fame from the 1880s era. George Wright was selected to the HOF but as a pioneer and his best years were the 1870's (he was probably really good in the late 1860s too FWIW). The next SS was Jennings (and then G. Davis and Wagner) who made his mark in the 1890s.