Hall of Fame Early Baseball Committee

[CardCollector]

Great discussion folks! One point about Caruthers is that he crammed in many extra years of pitching in terms of innings pitched because of the way Comiskey used/abused him. Even if he probably deserves to be in based on pitching alone, his batting was legitimate: he finished second in average and first in on-base percentage in one of the years he played.

I think the only somewhat serious argument against Caruthers--and it also applies to Stovey--is that the American Association was too weak. But there are pretty good arguments against that belief, and in any event even if it were sometimes true for some years, you'd have to discount the league an extraordinary amount to knock out Caruthers.

[nat]

Caruthers didn't really pitch all that much. 2828 innings, even though it was the 19th century. Roy Halladay is the poster child for short career HOFer (Koufax is a special case). Roy pitched 2750 innings, but they were better innings. His ERA+ (ERA adjusted for the park he plays in, and then compared to league average) is 131, Caruthers' is 122. That Caruthers was also a good batter is also a good point. He seems like a borderline case to me, but of course it shouldn't be surprising that it's borderline cases that we've got left, considering how many opportunities we've had to induct these guys.

Bill Dahlen is a real oversight. He compares favorably to Alan Trammell, who really should have been inducted right away, but at least he made it eventually.

I could get behind Ross Barnes too, but he didn't play in enough seasons to qualify. The hall has waived the requirement before, but I doubt they'd do it for a guy who has been dead for 105 years.

[CardCollector]

I agree that Halladay deserves to be in, but I'd still compare Caruthers favorably to him. You're totally right about ERA+, it's just that I probably give more weight to Caruthers' ridiculous five-year WAR run that gives him some credit for his consistency and effectiveness even while being overused.

[conor912]

I know his career was shortened significantly, but I’dlove to see Smoky Joe Wood get some consideration. In 7 seasons as a pitcher he averaged 16 wins/year and has a lifetime ERA of 2. I know he falls short in other categories, but so don't plenty of other guys who are already in.

[commishbob]

Can we get Buck O'Neil in the Hall? Please?

[Orioles1954]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Can we get Buck O'Neil in the Hall? Please?

Agreed. He might not have had eye-popping Negro League accolades but his overall body of work and him being an ambassador of the sport definitely warrants inclusion.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

Agreed. He might not have had eye-popping Negro League accolades but his overall body of work and him being an ambassador of the sport definitely warrants inclusion.

I definitely want to see Buck "officially" in the Hall, but with that said, He has a HOF award named after him and a statue at the hall, so in my mind he IS a Hall of Famer and will always be represented as such in my collection.

[AGuinness]

Originally Posted by commishbob

Can we get Buck O'Neil in the Hall? Please?

Let's keep this drumbeat going. It's a shame it didn't happen earlier, when Buck was alive and could have given a speech at his induction. At the very least, the world could certainly use some Buck O'Neil stories to bring some joy to everyone.

[HexsHeroes]

.
Isn't there a category for individual contributions to the game of baseball, outside of individual performance ?

If so, I would love to see more HOF consideration for Lefty O'Doul, and the contributions he made towards growth and importance of baseball in Japan.

[commishbob]

Originally Posted by aguinness

let's keep this drumbeat going. It's a shame it didn't happen earlier, when buck was alive and could have given a speech at his induction. At the very least, the world could certainly use some buck o'neil stories to bring some joy to everyone.

I just finished this book for the second time. I doubt anyone could read it and not become an advocate for him getting in.

Best book I’ve read in years.

AF26DB61-909A-4E2C-8D1F-5D373E742BFC.jpg

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by nat

Caruthers didn't really pitch all that much. 2828 innings, even though it was the 19th century. Roy Halladay is the poster child for short career HOFer (Koufax is a special case). Roy pitched 2750 innings, but they were better innings. His ERA+ (ERA adjusted for the park he plays in, and then compared to league average) is 131, Caruthers' is 122. That Caruthers was also a good batter is also a good point. He seems like a borderline case to me, but of course it shouldn't be surprising that it's borderline cases that we've got left, considering how many opportunities we've had to induct these guys.

Bill Dahlen is a real oversight. He compares favorably to Alan Trammell, who really should have been inducted right away, but at least he made it eventually.

I could get behind Ross Barnes too, but he didn't play in enough seasons to qualify. The hall has waived the requirement before, but I doubt they'd do it for a guy who has been dead for 105 years.

They can put Barnes in as a Pioneer to get around the 10 year rule.

[Kidnapped18]

William Bell (124 Wins, Negro Leagues)

Bob Carruthers (1886 World Series, 218 Wins)

Eddie Cicotte (1917 World Series, 208 Wins, Black Sox Scandal)

Bill Dahlen (1905 World Series, .272 AVG, 2,400+ Hits)

Jake Daubert (1913 Chalmers Award, 1919 World Series, .303 AVG, 2,300+ Hits)

Shoeless Joe Jackson (1917 World Series, .356 AVG, 1,700+ Hits, Black Sox Scandal)

Sherry Magee (1919 World Series, .291 AVG, 2,100+ Hits)

Carl Mays (1915, 1916, 1918, 1923 World Series, 207 Wins, threw pitch that killed Ray Chapman)

Stuffy McInnis (1911, 1913, 1918, 1925 World Series, .307 AVG, 2,400+ Hits, A's $100,000 infield)

Tony Mullane (284 Wins, ambidextrous pitcher)

George Mullin (228 Wins)

Smoky Joe Wood (1912, 1915, 1920 World Series, 117 Wins, 34-5 Record in 1912)

[shagrotn77]

In terms of players, Dahlen (50%) and Stovey (50%) came closest last time. Stovey had some surprisingly impressive home run numbers, finishing first 5 times, second 3 times and third once. He also led the league in steals twice. He would have been a fantasy baseball #1 overall pick!

[JollyElm]

I'm not a fan of all of this looking way-far-back stuff. No one's alive who even saw the players play and the people who did see them play (or played alongside them) didn't think they were worthy enough at the time the Hall opened (yes, I know that's a VERY generalized comment), so it feels strange. Basing inclusion on theoretical stats misses the point IMHO.

Put it into modern context. Jeff Kent was a monster run producer at second base of all places. We all saw him play. Why the heck wasn't he a first-balloter? He gets absolutely no love (some say because of his personality?) and will eventually be dropped from the ballot, but some guy from the 1800's who might have a decent WAR stat is being considered??

[CardCollector]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I'm not a fan of all of this looking way-far-back stuff. No one's alive who even saw the players play and the people who did see them play (or played alongside them) didn't think they were worthy enough at the time the Hall opened (yes, I know that's a VERY generalized comment), so it feels strange. Basing inclusion on theoretical stats misses the point IMHO.

Put it into modern context. Jeff Kent was a monster run producer at second base of all places. We all saw him play. Why the heck wasn't he a first-balloter? He gets absolutely no love (some say because of his personality?) and will eventually be dropped from the ballot, but some guy from the 1800's who might have a decent WAR stat is being considered??

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

[tazdmb]

Surprise Doc Adams is getting no love in this thread. I think if anyone makes it, it would be him, as a contributor. The baseball community has learned so much about his contributions to the invention of the game in the last decade this was previously unknown. Would be surprised to see any new players, outside negro leaguers, get in next year-especially if Joe Morgan and Bert Blyleven are back on the committee. Still remember that Blyleven was on last committee and boasted that he did all his research-on Wikipedia.

[judsonhamlin]

I agree with Matthews, if you credit his NA time and victories. Otherwise, I think Dahlen, Mullane and Van Haltren all are worthy. I'm surprised Spottswood Poles hasn't gotten more support as a Negro League star (plus being a WW1 hero).

[OldOriole]

Originally Posted by CardCollector

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

As mentioned, measurements of stats like WAR are not theoretical. WAR also helps to put stats and achievements in historical context that have taken place over different time periods.

In your example, Jeff Kent is not (in part) a first ballot HOFer because his WAR is 55.4 - good enough for 240th all time (right in between Chet Lemon and Ian Kinsler). Jim McCormick is 74th all-time in WAR, just above Hoss Radbourn. Dahlen is similar and ranks 78th all-time (and 7th all time for shortstops). They have about 20 more WAR than Kent. WAR allows us to take a look at players we could never see with our own eyes and there's still a few (but not many) that have been overlooked by the Hall.

[clydepepper]

32nd post in this thread...and FINALLY...

Dummy Hoy is mentioned!


Very Deserving!!

.

[Ben Yourg]

"Dummy Hoy" -Way overdue
Imagine anyone playing with his handicaps,in the 1800s?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by OldOriole

As mentioned, measurements of stats like WAR are not theoretical. WAR also helps to put stats and achievements in historical context that have taken place over different time periods.

In your example, Jeff Kent is not (in part) a first ballot HOFer because his WAR is 55.4 - good enough for 240th all time (right in between Chet Lemon and Ian Kinsler). Jim McCormick is 74th all-time in WAR, just above Hoss Radbourn. Dahlen is similar and ranks 78th all-time (and 7th all time for shortstops). They have about 20 more WAR than Kent. WAR allows us to take a look at players we could never see with our own eyes and there's still a few (but not many) that have been overlooked by the Hall.

It is theoretical. It is a made up stat. bWAR is not the same as fWAR and there can be a large difference between the two. If you are going to say someone is a Hofer because their WAR is above a certain number, then you are saying one person should choose who belongs in the HOF, either baseball reference or fangraphs without any, without any transparency.

[CardCollector]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is theoretical. It is a made up stat. bWAR is not the same as fWAR and there can be a large difference between the two. If you are going to say someone is a Hofer because their WAR is above a certain number, then you are saying one person should choose who belongs in the HOF, either baseball reference or fangraphs without any, without any transparency.

I mean, all stats are made up in some sense. So are the stats that were readily available in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether newer stats more accurately capture a player's value in a way that wasn't apparent to Hall voters a long time ago. Using the best stats from yesteryear and today, we can get a pretty good idea of who should be in the Hall who wasn't enshrined originally. I like Carothers and Dahlen, and from this thread I now appreciate Harry Stovey, but I don't think we should reject more nuanced stats as "theoretical."

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by CardCollector

I have no opinion on Kent one way or the other, but stats like WAR aren't "theoretical." They are just more nuanced than the blunt stats available a hundred years ago (which could also explain why some of these guys weren't enshrined previously). If WAR, or ERA+, or other SABR-type stats were around then, the Hall would look very different now.

WAR isn't theoretical but it IS subjective. There is no set definition of WAR and it gives you weird variations. Ex: Barry Bonds with a WAR of 11.9 in 2001 and Roger Clemens with a 12.1 in 1997. Does anybody REALLY think Clemens had a better year in 1997 than Barry did in 2001?

[darwinbulldog]

Why would you even dignify with a response someone who doesn't know what theoretical means? Might as well be arguing that batting average is theoretical.