All the Cubs

[BioCRN]

Your list has been a great help to me filling out my own similar, but not score-weighted, collection. Gotta send some thanks for that. I've had some overlooked names added to my watch list since I stumbled onto your list years ago.

I allow leeway for some notable guys even if their numbers aren't spectacular, so guys like Max Flack, Cliff Heathcote, and Dom Dallessandro make my cut. Hal Jeffcoat sneaks in because he was a 2-way (hitter/pitcher) player for the Cubs, though none of it was spectacular.

Love the web page. Insane quality collection.

[Misunderestimated]

Great collection -- really thoughtful .

Just a side note - The Cubs Team HOF seems to think that they won the series in '69. Practically the whole team made the HOF (okay not Don Young, Jim Hickman, and Bill Hands) but the entire infield, two starting pitchers and an outfielder. The team really has done a nice job with it though...https://cubs.fanportal-mlb.com/hof/?...chc-halloffame

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

Great collection -- really thoughtful .

Just a side note - The Cubs Team HOF seems to think that they won the series in '69. Practically the whole team made the HOF (okay not Don Young, Jim Hickman, and Bill Hands) but the entire infield, two starting pitchers and an outfielder. The team really has done a nice job with it though...https://cubs.fanportal-mlb.com/hof/?...chc-halloffame

You're not wrong about the 1969 Cubs. I wrote about it here. Bill Hands was better than a few of those guys, but for some reason he didn't make the cut.

But I'm just really glad the Cubs have taken it seriously. Cooperstown has a lot of questionable additions and omissions that are fun to talk about, and the Cubs Hall is no different. I love players like Don Kessinger and Hank Sauer and Bill Buckner, even if I don't think they're hall-worthy.

[Misunderestimated]

History is really baseball's greatest advantage over the other sports. The Cubs have been around since 1876 (not as the "Cubs, but still). I think the team HOF should have a different standard than the Cooperstown standard. As a lifelong (50+ years!) Cubs fan I'm happy with Kessinger and Buckner despite their modern "analytic" shortcomings. For a few seasons Buckner was the Cubs the preeminent player -- we thought he was their best. That's got to mean something. I felt like Kessinger was their dependable SS forever when I was kid.
A team HOF - as opposed to the big one in Cooperstown -- should be more about fandom and little less about achievement as reflected in the modern "numbers."

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by Misunderestimated

History is really baseball's greatest advantage over the other sports. The Cubs have been around since 1876 (not as the "Cubs, but still). I think the team HOF should have a different standard than the Cooperstown standard. As a lifelong (50+ years!) Cubs fan I'm happy with Kessinger and Buckner despite their modern "analytic" shortcomings. For a few seasons Buckner was the Cubs the preeminent player -- we thought he was their best. That's got to mean something. I felt like Kessinger was their dependable SS forever when I was kid.
A team HOF - as opposed to the big one in Cooperstown -- should be more about fandom and little less about achievement as reflected in the modern "numbers."

I completely agree. I incorporate a lot of non-stat stuff into my ranking like playing time, all-star games, playoff appearances, awards and so on. Even so my ranking doesn't perfectly measure what a Cubs Hall of Famer is, but for me it's nice to have a starting point that's objective and the same for all players across eras.

Your point about Kessinger is well taken (not Buckner though, I'll never get that). But you used the words "felt" and "when I was a kid." At some point someone felt that way about Woody English and Charlie Hollocher too. Why aren't they in the Cubs Hall? The fact that the selection skews toward one particular team so heavily is a red flag for me. Guys who played in the 60s were honored in the 80s. Not shocking. But "I remember when they played" shouldn't be such a big factor. That's not fair to the players of 80 or 100 or 120 years ago.

[Shankweather]

Finally sent this one in to get authenticated by PSA. 1885 Chicago White Stockings.

Is that a different font on the flip? Is this a new thing, or is it just because it's an odd card?

[molenick]

I can't comment on the flip but what a great card! I would have called it a cdv or cabinet (I have seen both with deckle-edges) depending on the size (it's hard to tell how big it is from the scan). But whatever you call it, it looks amazing to me.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Shankweather

Finally sent this one in to get authenticated by PSA. 1885 Chicago White Stockings.

Is that a different font on the flip? Is this a new thing, or is it just because it's an odd card?

Stephen—Great piece. That “card” was given out for the first game at West Side Park, the Cubs new home in 1885. The team had just moved from Lakefront Park leaving behind lots of memories and the ability of Ned Williamson to hit home runs.

[Shankweather]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Your list has been a great help to me filling out my own similar, but not score-weighted, collection. Gotta send some thanks for that. I've had some overlooked names added to my watch list since I stumbled onto your list years ago.

I allow leeway for some notable guys even if their numbers aren't spectacular, so guys like Max Flack, Cliff Heathcote, and Dom Dallessandro make my cut. Hal Jeffcoat sneaks in because he was a 2-way (hitter/pitcher) player for the Cubs, though none of it was spectacular.

Love the web page. Insane quality collection.

Thanks man! That's my goal, to spread some love for all the great Cubs. Not just Tinker-Evers-Chance and Bryant-Baez-Rizzo (I know that doesn't line up perfect but whatever) with Ernie Banks in between. There were a lot of guys who deserve to be remembered.