New Pre-War HOFers? ESPN.com Article

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Actually, I think most of those guys like Brett came up through their farm system, although I could be wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: ali_lapoint

you could be right. but its not free agency that made the royals bad. it was the lack of money put into the team.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Jodi:

I happen to like Joe Wood as well, but he wasn't the first pitcher to resurrect a career by moving to the outfield. Elmer Smith was Joe Wood 20 years earlier.

Kevin

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/smithel01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)

Deacon White and Bill Dahlen both belong. Both demonstrated sustained excellence and were also among the very best players in the game for some of their respective careers. Players like Joe Wood were among the very best for a short time but did not demonstrate sustained excellence. Wood's greatness was ended by injury -- he made a valiant comeback as a good but never excellent outfielder.

White is an especially egregious omission from the Hall. He was a great pioneer and a great player -- either one of which should have justified his induction many years ago.

His brother Will was also a tremendous player. Will was a pitcher who had a fairly short career (really only 7 seasons) and really dominated for a little while putting up great numbers like only a 1/2 man rotation 19th century ace could. To me he belongs in the same group as other great forgotten 19th century Pitchers who all have the same sort of (strong) case for induction such as Mike McCormick, Tommy Bond and Larry Corcoran and my personal favorite Bobby Caruthers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Kevin,

You learn something new every day. I certainly was aware of "the first" Elmer Smith, but not of the similarities shared with Wood. Thanks for the enlightenment! Interesting facts like these are always appreciated. As a treat, here is a rare example of Elmer's signature:



Brian,

Thanks to you for agreeing with me on Will White. Nobody ever seems to even listen when I plead his case. As for Deacon, I like his numbers and his pioneering role in the game, but never will think of him as a HOF contender. Glad I still have one of the 3-5 known Deacon autographs just in case (and wish like heck I hadn't sold my other one)!

[Archive]

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)

Jodi, and anyone else who wants to know more about why Deacon White belongs in the Hall of Fame, I urge you to check out the posting from the "Hall of Merit" project a the baseballthinkfactory.org. If you peruse these links you will find too much information (primarily Sabremetric in nature) about White's value/merit in the larger context of when he played.

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/catchers/

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/1898_ballot_discussion

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/ranking_hall_of_merit_players_not_in_the_hall_of_f ame_group_3/

Chief Executive Summary (in other words even shorter):

In (too) brief -- based mostly on my recollections from about 5 yrs ago:
White was clearly the best Catcher before Buck Ewing and then became a top tier 3rd baseman. His on the field excellence actually preceded the advent of the National League and the National Association. In fact, excluding the National Association and everything before, White was basically a 3B. Even in this capacity (and Catching is and was a far more valuable field position) White still warrants HOF induction. Like other 19th century position players his career numbers suffer because of the few games played. In White's case his best seasons were in the 1870s when they played the fewest games. Go to White's page on baseball-reference.com and press the link "neutralize" above his hitting stats and then think about his career numbers given that he played the most dangerous position of all during some of his best years and that the protective equipment was non-existent. There were no "tools of ignorance" -- just ignorance.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/w/whitede01.shtml

[Archive]

Posted By: Misunderestimated (Brian H)

I don't think they exactly resurrected their careers (no injuries I am aware of) but Cy Seymour and George Van Haltren also started out as Pitchers and then moved to the outfield before Wood got to the majors.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/s/seymocy01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml

Neither of them were close to Wood as a Pitcher (not many ever were) but both of them became great outfielders (ie. they could really hit). Van Haltren is a strong Hall of Fame candidate and Seymour was one of the best players in baseball for a short time.

In terms of Pitching, Babe Ruth is closest to Wood. He didn't resurrect his career -- he voluntarily went from being one of the game's best Pitchers to its best outfielder/hitter (Ever).

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter_Spaeth

81 HR, 1118 RBI, 2394 Hits, .277. Not exactly overwhelming are they.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Let's not use Babe Ruth in our collective pondering. Comparing the Babe to a borderline HOF candidate who has been overlooked for over 70 years is akin to extolling the virtues of a Deusenberg against those of an Edsel. The Edsel was a mighty fine car, ahead of its time, but only a select few will ever realize and appreciate that. Most folks would tell you that the Edsel may have had power and performance, but it wasn't streamlined like the rest of the cars of its era. It had a clumsy, less graceful appearance when placed alongside its beautiful peers. It's taken some classic car enthusiasts half a century to realize how special the Edsel really was, but most of the world can't see the car's underlying beauty. Ergo, certain 19th century players are not in the Hall. Most of them will never be enshrined. Unless there is a huge campaign such as what provoked the recent Negro Leaguer love fest, we'll be lucky to see even one of them inducted.