Informal Hall of Fame Opinion Poll

[Kenny Cole]

I'd choose Al Oliver over Madlock. He always hit the ball hard, had over 2700 hits, and was absolutely a hitting machine. I liked Maddog, but Oliver was head and shoulders better. When talking about guys who got the shaft from the BBWAA, I'd put the two O's, Oliver and Oliva, up near the top.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

I'd choose Al Oliver over Madlock. He always hit the ball hard, had over 2700 hits, and was absolutely a hitting machine. I liked Maddog, but Oliver was head and shoulders better. When talking about guys who got the shaft from the BBWAA, I'd put the two O's, Oliver and Oliva, up near the top.

I second that... Oliver was a machine. Perhaps if he had more longevity, he might have made it in. I still remember a long stretch of televised Pirates games in the '70s... he must have gone about 16 for 20, and even his outs were among the hardest hit balls in the game.

[Mark]

Oliver always seemed to center the ball, but he was not a great rbi man. With all the hitters in front of him, he should have driven in tons of runs in the early to mid seventes. But he drove in 100 runs only once, at the end of his career. I still think Madlock was the better hitter.

[Kenny Cole]

Actually, he drove in 100+ twice and 99 once. Madlock? 0. Oliver also had 700+ more hits. Oliver had 7 AS appearances, Madlock had 3. We can debate the numbers and what they mean, but I believe that people at the time thought Oliver to be the better ballplayer. Now, years after they have both retired, I believe that the thinking back then was, and remains, accurate.

[Joe_G.]

I also hate to kick anyone out but want to voice support for the single most deserving 19th century player not yet enshrined . . . Deacon White.

Without question, Deacon was the games best catcher during a decade in which the catcher was of most importance, the 1870s. If a team didn't have a good catcher, they didn't stand a chance regardless of who might be pitching. Catching wasn't for the faint of heart back then and Deacon did it masterfully, moving close behind the batter to hold runners from advancing while pitchers threw harder and began experimenting with curve balls etc. His defense alone makes him more than worthy but it didn't end there. Deacon also posted impressive offensive numbers in the 1870s including a couple years in which he would lead many catagories. He would re-invent himself as a better than average 3rd baseman in the 1880s and continue to post better than average offensive numbers even when he became the oldest man in the League in 1887. Championships seemed to follow him just about everywhere he went. I don't understand Deacon's exclusion.