Should these 4 19th Century players be in the HOF?

[ejharrington]

Yes to McCormick only.

[darwinbulldog]

McCormick yes is the only one I feel strongly about either way. There are 66 pitchers in the Hall of Fame already, and McCormick was better than two-thirds of them.

[scotgreb]

I voted yes to all -- and would for several other 19th century players. Not that I am a "big hall" guy but I feel like the importance of this generation is a little under-represented in the HOF.

Glasscock, Jack N28 PSA 4 43006856.jpg Mathews, Bobby 1888 N172 JMO Authentic.jpg McCormick, Jim 1887 N172 Portrait SGC70 1227643-091.jpg Mullane, Count 1887 N172 OJ PSA 4 63660461.jpg

[mrreality68]

I would like to see all of them in. But at this point I doubt any will get in.

But if I could only choose 1 it would be McCormick

[scotgreb]

For those that are not familiar, SABR votes on its "Overlooked 19th Century Base Ball Legend" annually -- since 2009. Following is a link with all the information . . .

https://sabr.org/sabr-overlooked-19t...seball-legends

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by scotgreb

I voted yes to all -- and would for several other 19th century players. Not that I am a "big hall" guy but I feel like the importance of this generation is a little under-represented in the HOF.

Beautiful cards! I forgot to post mine.

[G1911]

McCormick and Mullane pitched a similar number of innings with almost the same ERA+. They have very similar value, I think. Interesting that they are seen so different thus far with McCormick clocking double the support.


McCormick and Mullane are a yes, Glasscock and Mathews are borderline. I’d probably vote for Glasscock too. Mathews was about league average, a Jim Kaat type of compiler. I wouldn’t be offended by his selection but probably would lean to ‘just misses’. None of the 4 have gotten a fair, serious look by the Hall.

[Rad_Hazard]

I kinda assumed this would be the case as McCormick has the best resume, while Mullane has the worst out of this group, but in my opinion they all have HOF credentials.

McCormick was absolutely next level and the only reason he isn't in the Hall is because he didn't get to that coveted 300 win number.

Mullane got close to 300 as well and had great career numbers, but not nearly as strong as McCormick.

Mathews has a TON of history on his side as well as falling only 3 wins short of 300 wins, which if he would have got them, he would already be in the Hall. I'm not trying to focus on that number too much, it's just that early voters would have and it seems to be the only benchmark as to who got in and who didn't as far as 19th century pitching.

Glasscock, to me, is a HOF lock. Best all around player of his era. Great bat, absolutely insane glove and career stats to boot. He was by far and away the best SS in 19th century baseball, better than Dahlen.

[oldjudge]

Glasscock, to me, is a HOF lock. Best all around player of his era. Great bat, absolutely insane glove and career stats to boot. He was by far and away the best SS in 19th century baseball, better than Dahlen.

George Wright might disagree and George would be right.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by G1911

McCormick and Mullane pitched a similar number of innings with almost the same ERA+. They have very similar value, I think. Interesting that they are seen so different thus far with McCormick clocking double the support.

2 x 49 = 59?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

2 x 49 = 59?

At the time I said it, as I do not have the magical ability to tell the future, it was 14 McCormick and 7 to Mullane. That is double the support.

[BobbyStrawberry]

I voted Yes to all but Mullane, although he has a case too. Are any of these guys ever going to get in, though? It seems to me that we'll have a lot more Harold Baineses making it before the early years are properly acknowledged...