HOF releases pre-Integration ballot today.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yes, Peter we do. Just because they didn't get it right earlier is no reason to say it shouldn't ever happen.

In that vein, there is one player (that I'm aware of, anyway -- there may be more) who hasn't been elected but who meets or exceeds every HOF criteria used by baseballreference.com: Black Ink, Gray Ink, HOF standards, and HOF monitor. He isn't on the ballot. Who is he?

Kenny I am guessing it's some 19th century pitcher, I assume you aren't counting someone like Sosa or Palmeiro who might qualify too.

As to the other point, we just disagree, if you can't get in the first 10 or 15 times it seems to me there is probably a good reason not to let you in.

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

if you can't get in the first 10 or 15 times it seems to me there is probably a good reason not to let you in.

I used to hold that point of view, but I came to realization that a person's reputation is not static. A person's significance may not be recognized in their own time, but later generations may hold a different view. Harry Truman is a perfect example of this. He was not well regarded at the end of his presidency, but historians generally consider him far more significant today. This can certainly be said for some of those of the ballot today. Why did it take a William Hulbert so long to get elected?

Also, let's not forget the flipside of this argument. Just because someone was elected in 1940 doesn't mean that we would consider them today. We can all name several of the enshrined who would never get a moment of consideration today.

[packs]

It took 75 years for Amos Rusie to get in and he won 30 games 4 years in a row.

[Brian Van Horn]

Too bad there isn't a write in candidate. I would vote for Bob Johnson.

[wolf441]

I don't think that putting in Bill Dahlen would be diluting the Hall of Fame at all. If you look at his top ten career comparables, 7 are in the HOF:

George Davis
Bid McPhee
Bobby Wallace
Luke Appling
Luis Aparicio
Ozzie Smith
Frankie Frisch

and you could make a decent case for Herman Long, Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel

[Old Hoss]

I take issue with the argument that if 19th-century players have not gotten in by now, they don't belong in the HOF for a number of reasons.

I will limit myself to one reason for now: we know much more about the early game now than we did even five or ten years ago. There is a vast amount of information from the 19th century that has only become widely-available in the last five years or so through online newspaper and genealogy databases, and there are a number of relatively new key resources for the researcher/reader/writer of 19th-century baseball (the journal Base Ball: A Journal of the Early Game, work done by Peter Morris, work done by members of SABR's 19th-century committee, to give examples). Thus, we have a better idea of how early players stacked up in their time.

Through this relatively newfound information has come the revelation that there are worthy players who have been left out. Doesn't this make perfect sense?

Charles

[Peter_Spaeth]

Last thing we need is more cricket players in the Hall.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by wolf441

I don't think that putting in Bill Dahlen would be diluting the Hall of Fame at all. If you look at his top ten career comparables, 7 are in the HOF:

George Davis
Bid McPhee
Bobby Wallace
Luke Appling
Luis Aparicio
Ozzie Smith
Frankie Frisch

and you could make a decent case for Herman Long, Dave Concepcion and Omar Vizquel

Steve, most of those in your list (if not all), are on the low side of HOF credentials; thus, if Dahlen ranks with them, his addition would indeed be diluting the HOF.

[Kenny Cole]

Peter,

Well, using that logic. why do we need to wait 10 or 15 years? They certainly don't get better after they retire. How about 1 or 2 years? Then, for example, Dimaggio isn't a hall of famer. He got in on his third try. Five years? No Jimmy Foxx. 10 years? Kid Nichols and Harry Heilmann, among others, don't get in.

Is Dimaggio a HOFer? I would certainly argue that he meets the definition. But his stats sure didn't change during the two years he was shut out. Nor did the voter's perceptions of his abilities.

The problem with drawing lines is that, depending where drawn, some are barely in and others are barely out, although there is often very little difference between the two. Also, the lines keep getting re-drawn as perceptions concerning what a HOFer "is" change. I have no problem at all revisiting the issue. You are right, we simply do, and probably always will, disagree about that.

BTW, saying that the answer to my question is "some 19th century pitcher" is a cop out. You need to do better. I'm sure you can with a modicum of effort.

[paul]

I think the slate of candidates is pretty weak, and I'm surprised because I think there are still several very strong candidates out there. They just didn't make the ballot. Like George Van Haltren, Bob Caruthers, and Carl Mays. I'd take any of them over Wes Ferrell and Bucky Walters.

[Peter_Spaeth]

OK Kenny I spent some time on baseball reference and it appears you may be thinking of Jim McCormick?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK Kenny I spent some time on baseball reference and it appears you may be thinking of Jim McCormick?

Peter,

You are correct.

Kenny

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK Kenny I spent some time on baseball reference and it appears you may be thinking of Jim McCormick?

Jim McCormick, a name that will live in infamy, is undoubtedly a name that is oft remembered in Cleveland. I wouldn't know.

In a league where nearly half the runs were unearned, the significance of ERA would seem less important than fielding average.

McCormick was essentially the only pitcher in Cleveland for much of his career. I guess that's why they didn't shut him down a la Strasburg. He must have had a sore arm the year he lost 40 games.

I'm all for the Hall of Fame, but continuing to add eighteenth century players on the basis of statistics seems a bit irrelevant.

I hear that the Fiddler's Hall of Fame is adding Nero to this year's ballot.

[Bocabirdman]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I'm all for the Hall of Fame, but continuing to add eighteenth century players on the basis of statistics seems a bit irrelevant.

I hear that the Fiddler's Hall of Fame is adding Nero to this year's ballot.

It does seem that the election commitee is swirling the keg to find "just one more mug". McCormick's stats do not scream "HOF". A case could be made for his inclusion but realistically, calling him a .500 pitcher is more truth than a lie. A couple of gaudy single season stat lines do not make him a hall of famer. It is impressive to make 70-plus starts in a season in a season. Losing 40 games in a season is not. They were different times. Less was know about the long term wear and tear on a pitcher's arm. There was no data pool to dive in. Medicine was 20 years past Civil War limb amputations. Pitcher's developed "tired" arms and were finshed. That was it. If you were to adjust his numbers to reflect a 4 man rotation (let alone a five man)., he wouldn't have had more than 2 20 win seasons. Mr McCormick was a journeyman.

I have heard some of Nero's bootlegs. He WAS a "hot" picker....

[glchen]

I'm surprised Lefty O'Doul didn't get nominated. There are usually some pretty strong calls for him to get more consideration.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter,

Well, using that logic. why do we need to wait 10 or 15 years? They certainly don't get better after they retire. How about 1 or 2 years? Then, for example, Dimaggio isn't a hall of famer. He got in on his third try. Five years? No Jimmy Foxx. 10 years? Kid Nichols and Harry Heilmann, among others, don't get in.

Is Dimaggio a HOFer? I would certainly argue that he meets the definition. But his stats sure didn't change during the two years he was shut out. Nor did the voter's perceptions of his abilities.

The problem with drawing lines is that, depending where drawn, some are barely in and others are barely out, although there is often very little difference between the two. Also, the lines keep getting re-drawn as perceptions concerning what a HOFer "is" change. I have no problem at all revisiting the issue. You are right, we simply do, and probably always will, disagree about that.

.

Kenny you're making a fallacious slippery slope argument. I never suggested drawing the line anyplace close to 1 or 2 years. My point is there comes a time (I could live with 15 years) when if someone hasn't got in or even come close, there's a reason for it. The reason people get in decades after the fact is some combination of dilution, misplaced nostalgia, and boredom.

[packs]

Considering the 19th century guys played at a time when milestone numbers like 500 or 300 or 3000 didn't exist, I think it is worthwhile to consistently re-analyze their abilities in their time and their level of play compared to the players they played against. For a long time if you had 2,000 hits you were amongst an elite group of players. Now the number is 3,000. One day it may be 4,000 and those 3,000 hitters might not look so good. Does that mean they weren't HOFers?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Considering the 19th century guys played at a time when milestone numbers like 500 or 300 or 3000 didn't exist, I think it is worthwhile to consistently re-analyze their abilities in their time and their level of play compared to the players they played against. For a long time if you had 2,000 hits you were amongst an elite group of players. Now the number is 3,000. One day it may be 4,000 and those 3,000 hitters might not look so good. Does that mean they weren't HOFers?

Since 1901 or so 300 wins and 3000 hits have been pretty steady milestone numbers. 500 HR got devalued a bit in the steroid era, but I am guessing that reverts to being pretty meaningful too. We have had since 1939 to judge the 19th century guys, and we have had since the 1950s to judge players like Joe Gordon who for the life of me I can't understand as a Hall of Famer with his .268 average and 1500 or so hits. Enough!!

[oldjudge]

Peter--in Deacon White's first nine years in baseball he hit over .300 every year and, over those nine years, he struck out twenty-six times. He was one of the best defensive catchers in the league and, unlike most of the players of his time, a model citizen. He started playing in 1871, the first year of the National Association. Virtually none of the HOF voters ever saw him play while in his prime. I think he is more deserving of inclusion in the HOF than a lot of the current members. He is much more deserving than Tommy McCarthy, a fellow pre-1900 player.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Peter--in Deacon White's first nine years in baseball he hit over .300 every year and, over those nine years, he struck out twenty-six times. He was one of the best defensive catchers in the league and, unlike most of the players of his time, a model citizen. He started playing in 1871, the first year of the National Association. Virtually none of the HOF voters ever saw him play while in his prime. I think he is more deserving of inclusion in the HOF than a lot of the current members. He is much more deserving than Tommy McCarthy, a fellow pre-1900 player.

The strike out numbers are meaningless. In 1874 Deacon didn't strike out once, but the team's pitcher Al Spalding pitched 617 innings and recorded only 31 strike outs. Wasn't pitching back then akin to slow pitch softball today, underhanded without heat. Deacon batted .301 that year, but his team's batting average was .312. Deacon also committed 70 errors that season, third highest on his team. You cannot convince me of the comparative relevance of statistics from the 1870s to the twentieth century game.

Apples and oranges I say. Deacon White would not be in my Hall of Fame, but that is not to say he wasn't a model citizen.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Since 1901 or so 300 wins and 3000 hits have been pretty steady milestone numbers. 500 HR got devalued a bit in the steroid era, but I am guessing that reverts to being pretty meaningful too. We have had since 1939 to judge the 19th century guys, and we have had since the 1950s to judge players like Joe Gordon who for the life of me I can't understand as a Hall of Famer with his .268 average and 1500 or so hits. Enough!!

Peter, that's wrong.

For example, Sam Rice retired in 1934 with 2,987 hits. The reason? He didn't even know how many hits he had. 3,000 hits was not some special milestone at the time so there was no reason to play another season and shoot for it.

3,000 hits later became a special milestone, but that didn't happen until at least the late 1930's, maybe even the early '40's. Once people, particularly sports journalist types, started taking a harder look and those darned old statistics, the "milestones" began to become important. I suspect it is probably no coincidence that 3,000 hits as a milestone accomplishment occurred after the HOF opened and not before.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter, that's wrong.

For example, Sam Rice retired in 1934 with 2,987 hits. The reason? He didn't even know how many hits he had. 3,000 hits was not some special milestone at the time so there was no reason to play another season and shoot for it.

3,000 hits later became a special milestone, but that didn't happen until at least the late 1930's, maybe even the early '40's. Once people, particularly sports journalist types, started taking a harder look and those darned old statistics, the "milestones" began to become important. I suspect it is probably no coincidence that 3,000 hits as a milestone accomplishment occurred after the HOF opened and not before.

Sam Crawford probably could have stuck around too, but you are missing my larger point, which was to respond to the poster who said that you can't use statistics to compare eras because today's 3000 hits could be tomorrow's 4000. My point was only that 3000 since 1901 generally reflects the same level of accomplishment as 3000 now.

[npa589]

+1 on the Joe Gordon comment. If you play on the Yankees, your statistics are the variable in an algebraic expression and the multiplier is 2. It's maddening, confusing, and just plain stupid.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Since 1901 or so 300 wins and 3000 hits have been pretty steady milestone numbers. 500 HR got devalued a bit in the steroid era, but I am guessing that reverts to being pretty meaningful too. We have had since 1939 to judge the 19th century guys, and we have had since the 1950s to judge players like Joe Gordon who for the life of me I can't understand as a Hall of Famer with his .268 average and 1500 or so hits. Enough!!

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Kenny you're making a fallacious slippery slope argument. I never suggested drawing the line anyplace close to 1 or 2 years. My point is there comes a time (I could live with 15 years) when if someone hasn't got in or even come close, there's a reason for it. The reason people get in decades after the fact is some combination of dilution, misplaced nostalgia, and boredom.

Peter,

I absolutely disagree with everything you just said. It isn't a slippery slope argument and a couple of years certainly would be as "fair" as are the current voting standards. Statistics don't get better after a player retires and voting on them quickly allows them to be voted on by people who saw them, who can place those statistics in context of the time in which the player played, and who can also judge them based upon criteria that don't necessarily show up in simple numbers. As I'm sure you are well aware, memories tend to fade. After a while, things that don't show up as numbers tend not to show up at all.

And yes, you do want to draw a line -- some time period (10 or 15 years is what you originally said) after which you have unilaterally determined that they have gotten enough of a "look" and don't need to be "looked at" anymore.

That is the problem with your analysis when it comes to guys like White, Mullane and Dahlen, to name a few. Dahlen last played 25 years before there was a HOF vote, and he was the last of the three I named to play. He really didn't get much of a "look" from anyone who saw him play at all, Yet he shouldn't get another look (under your analysis) because: 1) he didn't get the vote from people who didn't see him play when the voting first began; and 2) then didn't get in during the many years of Veteran's Committee cronyism because he played too early and therefore didn't have a crony on the committee to speak up for him? Now THAT is a fallacious argument and analysis.

We can't change the fact that most of the voters in the initial years didn't see guys like White, Mullane and Dahlen play. But, as sabremetrics increase our ability to view statistics in new (and hopefully better) ways, we can at least make up for that a little bit by re-visiting what those statistics mean in context. And, IMO, that should occur. BTW, were Dahlen, for example, to be elected, I would place him above 8 or 9 of the shortstops already in the Hall. He certainly wouldn't dilute the representation of shortstops in the Hall. If anything, he would bring the average up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I'll grant you Dahlen was better than Joe Tinker and probably several other SSs, but the fact that many players already are in who shouldn't be is not, in my mind, a justification for letting in others just because they are comparable or better. The inevitable result of that logic would be extreme dilution. I'd rather have some inequalities than open the floodgates. I am sure Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Tommy John (to name a few) are better than pitchers already enshrined. Ken Boyer was probably as good as Santo, or if not, better than some 3B already in. You could probably name a host of guys who were, in context, better than Schoendienst, Kell, Mazeroski, Gordon, not to mention all the undeserving 30s players that Frankie Frisch pushed through. Let em all in?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I'll grant you Dahlen was better than Joe Tinker and probably several other SSs, but the fact that many players already are in who shouldn't be is not, in my mind, a justification for letting in others just because they are comparable or better. The inevitable result of that logic would be extreme dilution. I'd rather have some inequalities than open the floodgates. I am sure Jim Kaat, Luis Tiant and Tommy John (to name a few) are better than pitchers already enshrined. Ken Boyer was probably as good as Santo, or if not, better than some 3B already in. You could probably name a host of guys who were, in context, better than Schoendienst, Kell, Mazeroski, Gordon, not to mention all the undeserving 30s players that Frankie Frisch pushed through. Let em all in?

I don't know. If you give me a name, then we can start to discuss them "in context." But I wouldn't have a problem if Ken Boyer was elected at all. Or Kaat. Or Tiant. Tommy John I would have to give some serious consideration to before I could make a decision.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Well we can start with ones that come up all the time: Hodges, Garvey, Oliva, Munson, Maris.