HOF releases pre-Integration ballot today.

[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.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

But it doesn't. You are wrong about that too.

[Joe_G.]

Peter, your vision of early baseball, circa 1870s, is flawed. Many pitchers were finding success by throwing as hard as they could muster, often side-arm or even slightly overhand (pitchers constantly pushed the envelope and would use as high an arm angle as the umps would allow). Pitchers were starting to throw curve balls (Candy Cummings), try that without significant pitch speed. Granted, Deacon did catch a fair number of Spaldings games and he was a softer thrower but he then became a pioneer by catching close behind the batter to keep runners from advancing on base. This led to more errors but ultimately reduced the number of runs the opposing team would score. Moving up close behind the batter was a dangerous proposition.

Deacon White was considered the best catcher of the 1870s, a decade in which catching was deemed the most valuable position on the field. His defensive skills alone made him extremely valuable and he improved his worth by being amongst League leaders in many offensive categories as well.

Deacon has everything going for him. Solid play during the 1870s, catching more games than anyone (catching put many promising careers to bed early). He then re-invented himself and played another decade at 3rd base with enough success for James to rank him among the 100 best at that position.

Deacon White is a clear stand-out for me and many others. I would recommend the book "Cather - How the Man Behind the Plate Became an American Folk Hero" by Peter Morris. This book has helped many people understand the brillance of Deacon White's play during the 1870s.

[oldjudge]

I got an email from SABR this week with news about a new book which rates baseball stars as to whether they are HOF worthy. The book, interestingly enough, reviews six of the players who are on the ballot. Here are the reviews of Tony Mullane and Deacon White:


Tony Mullane ranks 57th all-time among starting pitchers in Hall of Fame points. For that and being the greatest pitcher in American Association (as a major league) history, he is certainly a Hall of Famer.



Deacon White ranks 34th all-time among hitters, including 27th in career production and 18th in peak seasons production thanks to the schedule adjustment made to level the playing field between 19th Century players who played in short seasons and those playing in longer seasons. White absolutely is a Hall of Famer.

Hopefully the HOF voters do their homework and elect these two worthy candidates.

[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.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Absolutely support Hodges and Oliva. On the fence about Garvey. I see the argument for Munson and Maris but remain unconvinced thus far.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's surprising, in light of Hodges' impressive career stats, that he does so poorly on baseball reference. Bill James ranks him only #30 among first basemen, too.


Black Ink

Batting - 2 (604), Average HOFer ≈ 27




Gray Ink

Batting - 128 (140), Average HOFer ≈ 144




Hall of Fame Monitor

Batting - 83 (225), Likely HOFer ≈ 100




Hall of Fame Standards

Batting - 32 (272), Average HOFer ≈ 50