Who do you think deserves to be in the HOF!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

It has definitely become easier over the years to get high vote totals. This is probably due to the fact that the definition of "greatness" has become a little clearer. When Ruth was first elected, it may not have been clearer to voters whether or not 10 more guys would hit 700 home runs in the next few decades. The home run hitter was a new phenom (similar to the closer today). Now, everyone knows what the major milestones of greatness are (except for saves where the stat is still developing).

Incidentally, Seaver was essentially a unanimous inductee. Four people voted against him. Two were protesting Pete Rose's exclusion from the ballot and said that they would have voted for him otherwise. One was in the hospital on sedatives and said he marked the wrong name. One said he believed Seaver belonged but never voted for anyone on the first ballot as a matter of principle.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

One player who i think deserves a better look is Lave Cross who started as an 19th century catcher when catchers werent putting up offensive stats and had a tough time catching 100 games a year.He platooned there until age 27 (despite a 293 average over the last 4 years)when he got a spot at 3rdbase. He then put up real good numbers both at the plate and in the field where he put up fielding % from 30-50 points higher than the league average while always making more plays in the field than the average player.

He ended up with a .292 average and over 1300 rbi's and runs and over 2600 hits,400+ doubles and just over 300 stolen bases(which looks even better when you consider he caught his 1st 7 years). He gets no mention here despite these very good numbers. When you realize the only 3rdbaseman that played in the 19th century in the hall is Jimmy Collins who trails him in everything but average(and Collins batted .294 career),and Cross even has a better fielding %,and his range is just behind him. Collins was known for a long time as the best 3rdbaseman in baseball history,yet by fielding and batting stats Cross should have a case.....but then when you figure in 7 years as a platoon catcher to start,that should help Cross's case,not hurt him

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Dawson

Do PCL players deserve to be in the HOF based on their PCL playing records? Any comments or opinions on that topic?



Fred,

I'm really not sure about that. That's kinda why I asked about a book on the PCL. I suppose an argument could be made for some players, but I'm afraid it would be a slippery slope that once one player is inducted, then calls would be made for more and more players to be inducted (sorta like it is now ). Let's just say that if it could be shown that a player had outstanding stats in the PCL way back when, and for whatever reason they never got the chance to move up to the "majors", then they should at least be considered for HOF induction.

I guess it just kinda hit me tonight when someone above mentioned that it's the "National" Baseball Hall of Fame, meaning "all" baseball in the country. It's like I've been arguing for some time about the "Pro" Football Hall of Fame meaning that it's "all" pro football, not just the NFL.

I know there would be all kinds of arguments about if so and so player in the PCL was really good, he would've been called up to the "majors". Like I said before though, were there any really great Hall of Fame caliber players in the PCL who could have made it in the "majors", but chose not to because they didn't want to play clear across the country since no major league teams were west of the Mississippi.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Rich W.

I would like to see a housecleaning before they let anyone else in. Get rid of the George Kells and Red Schoendiensts. Or put their plaques out in a free room at Cooperstown while it's paid admission for the Ruths and Gehrigs.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

http://www.amazon.com/Pacific-Coast-League-Statistical-1903-1957/dp/0786400455/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-9776969-1442345?ie=UTF8

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Johnny Evers, Joe Tinker, Roger Bresnahan, Jimmy Collins, Eppa Rixey, Chick Hafey, Kiki Cuyler, Travis Jackson, and the list goes on and on. Look up the stats of some of these guys. All time greats? NOT.

To me, the only two players who aren't in who obviously should be are Rose and Joe Jackson. But with standards as devalued as they are, it seems to me Santo, Dawson, Ken Boyer, and Kaat and as good as a number of players who are in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

In the mid-40s the baseball writers had no good candidates to induct, so they stood their ground, and elected noone. The veterans committee, however, felt an urgency to fill this gap and in 1944 elected Judge Landis; in 1945 Jimmy Collins and Fred Clarke; in '46 it was Joe Tinker, Tommy McCarthy, Johnny Evers and Frank Chance.

With this precedent set, the door was open for what has followed. And here we have the demise of credibility which now exists.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'm not sure I'd endorse the stingy voting practices of the writers in the mid-1940s. The guys they passed over included Lefty Grove, Carl Hubbell, Pie Traynor, Frank Frisch, Rube Waddell, Ed Walsh, Mordecai Brown, Joe McGinnitty, Charlie Gehringer, Bill Dickey, and Mickey Cochrane. What puzzles me is that all of these guys finished consistently behind Frank Chance and Johnny Evers until those two were put in by the veterans committee with Tinker.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Peter mentioned Jimmy Collins,and i did mention him in passing before but its worth noting in a poll taken in 1969 Collins was rated the best 3rdbaseman of the 1st 100 years of professional baseball. Another poll had him 2nd to Pie Traynor, but either way, if youre one of the top 2 players at your position thru the first 100 years of a sport then you deserve to be a hall of famer

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

John, that's exactly my point about HOFers. Stats be damned, if you are the best or one of the best if it happens to be a time when a position has a lot of great players, ala 3B in the 70s or SS now, then you should be in.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

That is a difficult concept to accept.
I believe that one's merit is independent of everyone elses poor performance.
For example: the best hitting pitcher may not be a good hitter.

Similarly, the best third baseman (or anything else) may still not be any good.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

But how do you know that a best player from their era is not very good? Various pepople have tried stats, but there is still no real agreement how to compare players across eras. Given that, I don't have a problem with putting the best player at each position from a given era. They were the best that existed given the circunstances. Ruth would have put up outstanding numbers no matter what era he played in, but do you seriously think that he would have posted the numbers he did if he played in the 60s when pitching dominated the game? Instead, we'd be looking at Jjimmy Foxx as the Sultan of Swat and Ruth would be just another member of the 500 HR club. That is if the combination of greenies and booze didn't kill him first.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

We were talking about Jimmy Collins, aka. the best third baseman in the first 100 years of baseball.

Gosh, they didn't even have gloves for much of that time. Aside from that, it seems that Collins' main claim to fame was his bunt fielding abilities. Admittedly there were lots of bunts in those days, and that capability was important. But that skill comes at a price. And that price is a decrease in the range of the third baseman's fielding. Other than fielding, Collins was not quite a .300 hitter during a period in which there were plenty of them.

Each of us will draw our own conclusions on these marginal HOFers. But it does not matter. What is done, is done. And more are in the wings.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Gilbert,that would be true if the Collins example wasnt based on 5 or 6 eras,not just the best from his era. The other thing to consider is that another poll done mid-80's said Mike Schmidt passed Traynor as the best 3rdbaseman ever.If you consider that 20+ years after Traynor retired a majority of people thought Collins was actually better,then youre adding another era of players it took to have someone better come along.

How many great 3rdbaseman have come along since then? George Brett immediately comes to mind but he played over 1000 games at a position besides 3rdbase. Wade Boggs was a great hitter but because of the era differences its hard to say if he was really a better 3rdbaseman overall.Fielding-wise it was a more important position back in Collins era and he was known for his great glove and strong arm,so youd have to give him a big advantage over Boggs who started as a weak to average fielder and developed into a respectable one later in his career winning 2 gold gloves.

You might not look at Collins stats and be real impressed(except his fielding stats should) but its hard to argue with how well he compares to his peers thru the years

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

Gilbert,when looking at Collins you have to realize that he was known for his ability to field bunts better than anyone else so chances are teams bunted less against him.You also have to figure in that he made more plays than the average 3rdbaseman each year constantly thru his career which means he probably had great range,plus his fielding % is well above league average as well. Now according to fielding stats,3rd baseman during his career averaged over 40% more plays than 3B's now which means his fielding stat should have more significance attached to it compared to current players.
When you factor in for a 3rdbaseman he was one of,if not the best hitters of his era and until Traynor came along,any 3B after,then its hard to argue that he doesnt measure up to hall of fame standards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

John, I've played some 3B, although mainly SS, maybe you have as well. It is surprising at first how different those positions are. The ball comes down the third base line like lightening. Fielding that position without a decent glove is suicidal.

Collins played alongside Long until he went to the AL. Long was very good. In the AL he played with Parent. I don't know much about Freddy Parent, but by then gloves were developing to the point that you could actually catch the ball rather than hope to knock it down, scramble for it, and retrieve it in time to throw out the runner. But all of this is regarding a batted ball, not one which is bunted.

The fielding of a batted ball is not Collins claim to fame, although it clearly was part of his job. He was good on bunts. Actually, he was the best third baseman of his time at fielding bunts.

This is true. It is also true that he nearly had a lifetime BA of .300. As you say: "then its hard to argue that he doesnt measure up to hall of fame standards". This is also true. However, I note that it seems somehow incongruous to use the terms "hall of fame" and "standards" in the same sentence.

IMHO Jimmy Collins is not close to top tier ballplayers, and maybe not second tier players either.


Edited to add: Traynor was a good fielder and a .320 hitter. But I do not consider him a top tier player. Do you?

My original contention was that simply being the best, does not necessarilly make you good.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

Jimmy Collins is so far down on Bill James' scales it is a joke.

Black Ink: Batting - 6 (322) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 27)
Gray Ink: Batting - 128 (135) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 144)
HOF Standards: Batting - 25.9 (413) (Average HOFer ¡Ö 50)
HOF Monitor: Batting - 39.5 (437) (Likely HOFer > 100)

He does compare favorably to Carney Lansford though.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

postion players roger maris, ken williams,cy williams,gavy cravath,buck oneil & minnie minoso. pitchers bert blylevin,joe wood and jack morris.

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

So if you go according to Bill James list AND the opinion of baseball writers/players/experts from 1969 then you would have to agree that Mike Schmidt wouldve been the 1st 3rdbaseman ever in the Hall of Fame? That to me is ridiculous,if the standards are set that high then you could still possibly be at just Schmidt right now,and maybe Brett but like i said he played over 1000 games at other positions(1b/dh)

Gil just to answer your one question,i did play a little 3rdbase and shortstop during little league but im a lefty so coaches didnt let me play there much.I also had the strongest arm and all but one team i played on so i usually pitched and played centerfield. 3rdbase probably was my best position tho,because i could field better than most kids,but i wasnt fast,i just had quick initial reactions.Im surprised theres no lefty 3rdbaseman but i assume most coaches stereotype lefties from an early age

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

Actually, the best third baseman in the first 100 years of organized baseball was Ned Williamson. In 1894 the Reach guide asked former players and umpires who the best PLAYER was of all time up to that point. Ned Williamson got more votes than anyone including Kelly, Anson, etc. That is some pretty strong support by your peers. Unfortunately for him, your worth as a catcher or third baseman back then do not translate to our modern "stat sheets". If the Hall of fame had started at the turn of the century, Ned Williamson would have been most likely the first ever Hall of Fame inductee. Guys voting today though will never vote him in because they do not understand, or care, about the early game.

The last thing I do not understand is, why did they vote so many Cuban players into the Baseball Hall of Fame this last year when there is already a Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame that I have heard mentioned in other posts? No offense as I know this is a touchy subject. I know they were great players but why induct them into the National American baseball Hall of Fame when they already reside in the Cuban Baseball Hall of Fame?

[Archive]

Posted By: john/z28jd

I guess they picked Williamson over Collins based only on the fact Collins didnt start playing till a year after that poll was taken.Thats pretty short-sighted if you ask me.

Williamson didnt play enough 3rdbase in my opinion to qualify over Collins,he didnt even play half as many games as him,and Collins was only in the 1600's himself.I would rate Billy Nash higher than Williamson,and hes a contemporary of him

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'd like to see the poll naming Ned Williamson as the greatest player of all time. No one in his right mind could have listed him above Anson or Clarkson or Keefe. He had one tremendous home run year, due entierly to the fact that he played in the smallest ballbark in major league history. Other than that, he was truly mediocre.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I get the feeling that many of you don't understand what was important in 19c baseball, especially from 1871-1894. Feilding was as absolute premium and the stars of day were not the batsmen, but the top fielders. The rules were written to highlight and feature fielding. Once the mound was moved back, pitching and hitting took center stage and fiedling started to take a back seat as to how a player was rated.

Basing you opinion on how great an early player was based soley on his hitting stats is going to give you a false idea as to who was great and who wasn't.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

John: its not just coaches, everyone stereotypes lefties from an early age.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

Ned Williamson's lifetime fielding percentage was .866 as a 3rd baseman (slightly above average) and .874 as a shortstop (slightly below average). To my knowledge, he was not renowned as an extraordinary fielder.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

One statistic which can be employed to determine how a good fielder from long ago compares with those good fielders of recent history, attempts to look at how dominant each fielder was, when compared to his peers. Although nothing is perfect, this statistic is called Most Seasons Leading League - 3rd Basemen. And it works out as follows:

Assists
AL - Brooks Robinson = 8
NL - Santo, Schmidt = 7

Chances
AL - Frank Baker, Brooks Robinson = 8
NL - Santo = 9

DPs
AL - Jimmy Austin, Ken Keltner, Frank Malzone = 5
NL - Heinie Groth, Ron Santo, Mike Schmidt = 6

PutOuts
AL - Eddie Yost = 8
NL - Willie Jones, Pie Traynor, Ron Santo = 7

Fielding Avg.
AL - B. Robinson = 11
NL - H. Groth, Ken Reitz = 6

So, if you want to determine how a specific individual stacks up, compare the seasons he has in which he led the league in these catagories, and you will have an idea regarding his actual overall performance.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The problem with that is an infielder that that players for a team with a pitching staff that gives up a lot of fly balls gets penilized, while pitching staffs that cause most batters to ground out will cause their infielders to a lot mroe chances to field the ball. Range also makes a difference. Compare Ripken and Ozzie Smith. Ripken's Fielding Percentage was .979, Smith .978. Essentially a tie, but no one would ever confuse Ripken's ability at SS with Smith's. If you look at Total Chances Ripken had @12,000 in 17 years at SS while Smith @17,000 in 19 years. This means that SMith was getting to a lot more balls than Ripken. This also means that he was getting charged for errors on some balls that would have been base hits if Ripken were playing instead.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I agree Jay. The approach which I offered is imperfect. However, although it has its limitations, it is the best way I know of to achieve a comparison of players from different eras.

And like I say: being the best does not necessarilly make it good.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

You can easily look up what I quoted as it is right in the 1894 Reach baseball guide. Someone on this forum probably has a copy as I sold mine a few months back. Also, the fact that people today use MODERN fielding stats to compare players of the 19th century is a dislexic way of looking at things.

In the 19th century if you touched a ball and did not make an out, it was considered an error. Therefor the BEST fielders usually had the worst fielding stats. The shortstops or third baseman with the best range made spectacular plays that others could not make, and if they made the play, great, if they got to a ball way in the hole but could not throw the guy out, error. The same problem is used by people who have no clue what they are talking about when refering to Germany Long who was THE BEST defensive shortstop of his era, but led the league in errors almost every year.

Ned Williamson was FAR AND AWAY the best fielding third baseman of the 19th century and basically any book on 19th century baseball will tell you that, but like I said, you cant look at modern stats to prove it. If you read enough material from the 19th century and go to sources from the era and not just reading modern crap from other guys who have never read vintage material, you will get this overwhelming impression over and over again. Ned Williamson was one of the premier players of early baseball and he was voted more popular than Anson and Kelly in the 1894 guide.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

I just found the info I was looking for. In the 1894 Reach guide the 12 most prominant men in baseball according to Reach were polled as to specific questions. Among these questions were "who was the greatest player the game has ever known" and "what was the greatest play you ever witnessed." Of the twelve men surveyed, Ned Williamson drew three votes as the best player EVER up to that point with votes from Jim O'Rourke, Arthur Irwin, and James Hart. Anson Ewing and Kelly were each voted for twice.

Williamson was also given a nod for "greatest play ever" by a man who did not vote for him as greatest player, Fred Pfeffer.

I can go into greater detail of what was said if needed, but that should suffice for now.

There you go, Ned Williamson voted by his peers in the only poll of its kind as the greatest player of the 19th century. I do not think of him as the best player of the 19th century, but his peers did and no matter what we say 120 years after the fact, no modern stats can compare to eyewitness accounts of the men who watched him every day for years and years!

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Ron Santo in and Johnny Evers out????
Unfriggingbelievable. The Crab not only was a great player with the Cubs, he put the woeful Boston Braves on his back in 1914 and led them to a world title (their only one). He was a great fielder, very good hitter, but more importantly one of the most intelligent on the field ballplayers of his era. He and Eddie Collins in the AL were the stellar second basemen of their era and both deserve to be in the Hall.
Santo was a very good player but in his era he was hardly the equal of Evers in his.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I guess I'll stand corrected. I still find it remarkable that anyone would have voted Williamson the best player no matter how good a fielder he was. I also find it remarkable that he was a good fielder. Have you ever seen a picture of him? He was huge.

Rhys, can you post a photocopy of that article without damaging your guide? I think it would make very interesting reading.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

The section of the guide is pretty long and would take about 10 pictures to scan. Plus, I sold my guide to a friend about 3-4 months ago so I do not have it in my hand. I do have a Bill James Book that he uses to paraphrase much of what I just said from the 1894 guide which is called, "Whatever happened to the hall of Fame" and this information is printed on pages 350 and 351 of that book as well. I would be happy to post pictures of those pages if you like.

I do think Williamson belongs in the hall of Fame, but I do not personally think he was the best 19th century player, but it is absolutely impossible for anyone to look at baseball in 19th century and make objective statements through 20th century eyes as all we know is the modern game. It is also interresting to note that Williamsons career and most likely his life were cut short by an injury suffered on Spaldings World tour and most people blame Spalding for the accident.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Paul, as pointed out before, the measure of a great player in the 19c was not your bat. It was your glove.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave Rey

Nineteenth century baseball was very analogous to what men's fast pitch softball is like today.

Anybody that has played men's fast pitch knows that the team's best player (not counting the pitcher -- who is BY FAR the most important fast pitch player) generally plays third base.

The third baseman in fast pitch generally plays about halfway up the baseline to pounce on the inevitible plethora of bunt attempts that define men's fast pitch offense, where the pitcher zips 80 mph pitches in from 45 feet and your best bet is to try to bunt or close your eyes and swing as hard as you can...

Baseball in the late 1800s was pretty much the same. Very few great offensive plays, so the best plays on defense usually define who wins and who loses. A great pitcher and a cat-like third baseman can be a potent men's fast pitch combination -- as they were in nineteenth century baseball.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I'm sure it's true that fielding was valued more highly in the 19th century than it is now. But I think it's also true that Cap Anson and King Kelly were two of the most highly regarded players of their time, and that this was due mostly to their bats. So I don't think hitting took a complete back seat to fielding.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Ozzie Smith and Brooks Robinson are considered a great players, mainly becuase of their defensive skills, but that is exception and not the rule, just as Anson and Kelley being noted for their bat back then is the exception.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

I kinda thought that in the beginning the focus of play was between the baserunners and fielders; and the pitchers were to not interfere with a batter's ability to hit the ball. Heck, a batter could demand a high or low pitch.

That shifted gradually with almost annual changes allowed to pitchers' deliveries to the point of allowing sidearm, then overhand pitches. As pitchers began to fool the batters, the focus shifted to a batter's prowess. Slicing the pitch into foul territory and other legal tricks of batsmen became important. Changes of the rules throughout the 19th century were employed to maintain a balance between the pitcher and batter.

And although fielding was a skill of major importance during this period, so was pitching and hitting. Top hitters, pitchers, baserunners and fielders were all stars in the 19th century, as they are today.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Manos

The Cobra

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I would vote in Phil Rizutto, Phil Niekro and Don Sutton...obvious choices all. Oh, sorry - damn, I forgot they were in already ...okay then, since they let in those guys, let's add Kaat and Oliva....and Maury Wills....hmmm...well, Al Oliver isn't that far behind....how about George Foster? Steve Balboni?

When are they going to build the "Hall of Longevity"? ...or the "Hall of Popularity"?

[Archive]

Posted By: glynparson

gavy cravath, roger maris, and dave parker

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

For everything he did for baseball on and off the field.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who was involved in baseball in more positive ways than Lefty. 5+ decades of baseball..... PCL, Major League, Japan, Pitcher, Batting Champ (all time single season Hit King for 70+ years), Ambassador, Coach, Manager, and a SF icon.

There is a reason a bridge is named after him in San Francisco. Other than DiMaggio and Mays, O'Doul is the most famous ball player from the city by the bay.

My grandpa (born in SF in 1901) only talked of 2 ball players, Babe Ruth and Lefty O'Doul. When I was a kid, I thought O'Doul and Ruth were the best 2 ball players ever!

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Counts

Minnie Minoso, Lefty O'Doul, Ron Santo, Cecil Travis, Tony Oliva, Bert Blylevin, Billy Martin and Andre Dawson.

Next to Mantle, who was a better all-around player in the A.L. than Minnie Minoso in the 50s? He got a late start because of the color barrier, endured a tremendous amount of abuse (just check out is record-setting hit-by-pitch totals), and still put up a decade of all-star numbers. Why I seem to be just about the only guy pushing for Minnie's induction is beyond my comprehension ...

Cecil Travis is another one of those guys whose rejection by HOF voters puzzles me greatly. The only knock on him is he didn't play long enough. Well, what do you expect from a guy who lost a couple toes from frostbite fighting in the Battle of the Bulge? Compare his stats to other HOF shortstops ... most aren't even close (sorry Joe Tinker) ...

Both of these guys are still alive ... I'd love to see each of their smiling grins standing at the podium in Cooperstown ...

Billy Martin, by the way, was simply a more volatile and more successful version of Leo Durocher. He just didn't have the good fortune of being buddies with Frankie Frisch. Ron Santo was one of the greatest third basemen who ever lived. Tony Oliva was flat-out the best AL hitter of the 60s (sorry Yaz). Bert Blylevin was better than at least a dozen HOF pitchers. Andre Dawson was simply a monster player. As for Lefty O'Doul, his contributions to Japanese baseball are enough to put him in ... and his .349 lifetime batting average.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Minnie Minoso got a late start? He got his first MLB at bat at the age of 23. He reeled off about 12 consecutive full time seasons a couple of years later. I wouldn't say he had a late start. He made great use of his time in the bigs. He probably deserves consideration for the HOF based on the criteria of some of the inductees already enshrined.

Jackie Robinson got a late start. He was about 28 when he got his start. There's no doubt that anyone of color back then endured a lot of crap. Thank goodness that's in the past. By the way, look at Africans or dark skinned people playing European soccer these days, they're being treated today like Jackie Robinson was back in 1947.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

Once bunted into a triple play, in another instance was picked off 1st base unassisted by the pitcher. Renowned for inept fielding, yet has a lifetime BA of .342 over thirteen seasons. The Louisville Slugger: Pete Browning.

Never to be acknowledged, never to be forgotten - like so many others.

Edited to add:

Another, who like O'Doul, had a lifetime average over .340 is Dave Orr. Who is a member of the small club of players who have hit over 30 triples in a season (lifetime BA .342)

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

YES minoso got a late start....he got to the majors at 27 in 1949 for a cup of coffee,then was sent down for 2 years.then,when he was finally brought back to the majors at 29 he then had a nice career. up until the steroid era his stats from the age of 29 to 40 compared to any player ever, and was better than most hall of fame players. 29 is very old to start in the majors ...now imagine if he did start at 23 what his career would have looked like.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Dennis,

When do you think Minnie Minoso was born? When do think he had his first day in the big leagues?

I've read twice now (in this thread) that he didn't get his start in the big leagues until he was about 30 years old. Maybe it's the reference material I read. Can you please tell me what reference material you're using.

Thanks!

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

he was born in 1922 http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/ballplayers/M/Minoso_Minnie.stm baseballreference.com says 1925 they are wrong...check any other reference

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Assuming the same birth date but three years earlier, then that would have made him 26 when he first hit the majors and 28 when he started to reel off full time play for about a dozen years. If that's the case then he probably left a few good years behind him after he started, maybe even his better years, you just never know.

Thanks for the information. I trust BBRef a bit too much I guess.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

just compare minosos rookie year to the gil mcdougald (of the yanks,who was voted by the sports whiters the ROY)and tell me how anyone could vote mcdougald the rookie of the year over minoso. if you pick minnies worst year among his first 10 and give hime 5 more like it and you will see a hall of fame career.if you pick 5 more good ones you see a true superstar hall of famer. the sudden drop in minosos stats in 62 were due to a broken leg(not age). after that injury he was thru in the big leagues....but continued to play in the mexican league for a lot more years.