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...

[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