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

[SteveMitchell]

Yes to all four.

[glynparson]

I’m fine with all 4 I am easy though with hall
Of fame support. I like a big hall.

[Fred]

If Bobby Mathews had 3 more W's, he'd already be in. 297 Wins (.545), sheesh. Mathews played in a few different leagues - was a true pioneer of the game. He had 2 x 30 and 2 x 20 loss seasons.

Mullane is at 284 lifetime wins (.563). Missed 1885 (I think because of contract jumping). He had 3 x 30+ wins a season prior to 1885 and 2 x 30+ wins in the next two seasons. I'm going to guess he'd probably had won at least 15 games in 1885 and that would have put him at the magic 300 wins and enshrinement. Ok, most of the games were AA but still, that's a load of Ws. He had 5 x 20 loss seasons.

McCormick - at 265 wins (.553) had a 40 loss season along with a couple 30 loss seasons (not to mention the 4 x 20 loss seasons). But he was pretty much an NL player.

Bottom line, those guys threw a ton of innings in a season back then so those 20, 30 and 40 loss seasons aren't too bad, but 40 losses is still a lot (McCormick did win 20 games in that 40 loss season).

So many 19th century players that probably should be enshrined. The HOF should look towards a pioneer section. How the hell is Ross Barnes not in?

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by Fred

If Bobby Mathews had 3 more W's, he'd already be in. 297 Wins (.545), sheesh. Mathews played in a few different leagues - was a true pioneer of the game. He had 2 x 30 and 2 x 20 loss seasons.

Mullane is at 284 lifetime wins (.563). Missed 1885 (I think because of contract jumping). He had 3 x 30+ wins a season prior to 1885 and 2 x 30+ wins in the next two seasons. I'm going to guess he'd probably had won at least 15 games in 1885 and that would have put him at the magic 300 wins and enshrinement. Ok, most of the games were AA but still, that's a load of Ws. He had 5 x 20 loss seasons.

McCormick - at 265 wins (.553) had a 40 loss season along with a couple 30 loss seasons (not to mention the 4 x 20 loss seasons). But he was pretty much an NL player.

Bottom line, those guys threw a ton of innings in a season back then so those 20, 30 and 40 loss seasons aren't too bad, but 40 losses is still a lot (McCormick did win 20 games in that 40 loss season).

So many 19th century players that probably should be enshrined. The HOF should look towards a pioneer section. How the hell is Ross Barnes not in?

+1

[Schwertfeger1007]

Absolutely Jack Glasscock

McCormick I'm on the fence

I love Mullane but he never led the league in Wins or ERA but does hold the record for most wild pitches in MLB history by a wide margin, so no...but how cool is this card???

Mathews no

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by Schwertfeger1007

Absolutely Jack Glasscock

McCormick I'm on the fence

I love Mullane but he never led the league in Wins or ERA but does hold the record for most wild pitches in MLB history by a wide margin, so no...but how cool is this card???

Mathews no

I think Glasscock and McCormick are absolute locks for the hall. McCormick has better pitching stats than a lot of HOF pitchers, and has the strongest case of any of the 4 IMO.

Mullane is a bit tougher, he's more of an accumulated stats (primarily Wins) kind of guy. (BTW that card is beautiful!)

As for Mathews, he has solid career numbers, and his historical/pioneer contributions are many. He's an easy HOFer IMO.

Originally Posted by Fred

If Bobby Mathews had 3 more W's, he'd already be in. 297 Wins (.545), sheesh. Mathews played in a few different leagues - was a true pioneer of the game. He had 2 x 30 and 2 x 20 loss seasons.

Mullane is at 284 lifetime wins (.563). Missed 1885 (I think because of contract jumping). He had 3 x 30+ wins a season prior to 1885 and 2 x 30+ wins in the next two seasons. I'm going to guess he'd probably had won at least 15 games in 1885 and that would have put him at the magic 300 wins and enshrinement. Ok, most of the games were AA but still, that's a load of Ws. He had 5 x 20 loss seasons.

McCormick - at 265 wins (.553) had a 40 loss season along with a couple 30 loss seasons (not to mention the 4 x 20 loss seasons). But he was pretty much an NL player.

Bottom line, those guys threw a ton of innings in a season back then so those 20, 30 and 40 loss seasons aren't too bad, but 40 losses is still a lot (McCormick did win 20 games in that 40 loss season).

So many 19th century players that probably should be enshrined. The HOF should look towards a pioneer section. How the hell is Ross Barnes not in?

I couldn't agree more! Ross Barnes is the batting equivalent to Bobby Mathews. Both played during the same early days of baseball and Barnes absolutely dominated every aspect of the game (offense and defense) from 1871-1876, it's pretty astonishing.

Based on their solid stats and historical contributions, Barnes and Mathews are in the same conversation IMO, and should be in the hall in one way, shape, or form.

[Misunderestimated]

Mathews and Mullane ran up their numbers in lesser leagues while McCormick's value is almost entirely from the NL. A lot of Mathews wins are from the National Association (1871-75) which is not recognized as a major league (probably it should be....
https://www.thenationalpastimemuseum...-major-league/

Mullane stared in the American Association which was generally inferior to the National League. There is just one player in the HOF who primarily played in the American Association, Bid McPhee.
Also, as noted above, McCormick seems to have been regarded as one of the best pitchers of his time I don't think that's true of Mathews at all. Not so sure about Mullane either.

Mullane also gets docked for a story (perhaps apocryphal) about mistreating Moses Fleetwood Walker who was briefly his catcher. There is also a story that he pitched with both hands -- so he was a "switch-pitcher."

Glasscock (what a name !) would be the only SS in the Hall of Fame from the 1880s era. George Wright was selected to the HOF but as a pioneer and his best years were the 1870's (he was probably really good in the late 1860s too FWIW). The next SS was Jennings (and then G. Davis and Wagner) who made his mark in the 1890s.