SABR "2010 Overlooked 19C BB Legend" Vote Results

[barrysloate]

I voted for Stovey, who finished third. But as I recall I wrote in Jim Creighton and he didn't even crack the top ten. I think to an extent he is a forgotten baseball hero.

[GaryPassamonte]

The only "superstars of their time" on that list are Barnes and Stovey. They also are the players on the list that received the most votes in the initial HOF election of 1936, 3 for Barnes and 6 for Stovey. White received 1 vote in 1936 and last year's winner, Browning, received 0 votes. Many of the people that voted in 1936 had seen all of them play. Today's voters can't claim the same first hand perspective.

[JasonL]

as to how difficult it is to elect anyone from any era, is the fact that last year's leading vote getter (Browning) did not place anywhere in the list you posted this year!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by GaryPassamonte

The only "superstars of their time" on that list are Barnes and Stovey. They also are the players on the list that received the most votes in the initial HOF election of 1936, 3 for Barnes and 6 for Stovey. White received 1 vote in 1936 and last year's winner, Browning, received 0 votes. Many of the people that voted in 1936 had seen all of them play. Today's voters can't claim the same first hand perspective.

That's an important point - it's the "Hall of Fame", not the "Hall of Great." Statistics certainly play a role in determining admission, but the popularity of the player is often left out of many of these discussions when it is a relevant factor.

[GaryPassamonte]

Jason- Browning was not included in this year's voting. Each year's winner is no longer in the mix.

[kkkkandp]

I am just as surprised at the poor showing by George Van Haltren. He is on many of the "best players not already in the Hall of Fame" lists and his statistics are certainly comparable to Dahlen's.

While Browning had an outstanding average, his totals are substantially lower than both Dahlen's and Van Haltren's and Browning's career was basically over at 32. I think he gets a lot of attention simply due to the "Louisville Slugger" connction as well as his colorful lifestyle.

[oldjudge]

I concur that Browning was the class of the list. The arguement against him was that he excelled in a weaker league (the American Association). However, in 1890, while competing with the stars of the National League in the Player's League, he led the league in hitting.
I would like to see Dummy Hoy and Dave Orr on that list also. Personally, I think Browning, White, Hoy, Orr, Stovey, Caruthers and Van Haltren all belong in the HOF. You can take McCarthy and Maz out for starters to make room.

[Joe_G.]

Point / Counter Point . . .

Here are a couple thoughts for your consideration. By 1936, the biggest issue facing Deacon White and many of the other 19th century greats was that they were forgotten. While Deacon White did play until 1890, his most impressive years, the years in which he clearly distanced himself from all others, spanned from the late 1860s through 1879 (his catching days). Most voters in 1936 had no memory of Deacon in his heyday unless they themselves were approaching 80+ years of age. I suspect very few of the voter’s fathers even remembered much about Deacon White. Before his death in 1939, Deacon White was the oldest major leaguer in the land, he had out-lived his contemporaries.

The more recent probing studies bring to light just how significant Deacon White was to the game of baseball. Recent books like “Catcher: How the Man Behind the Plate Became an American Folk Hero” by Peter Morris explain in great detail how important the catcher’s role was through the decades. In the 1870s, the catcher was deemed the most important position in baseball, a status it would never again attain. If you were the most skilled player on an 1870s nine and you were a truly brave soul, you just might make a successful catcher. The team with the best catcher typically won regardless of who might be pitching, hitting, etc. The games best pitchers needed equally capable catchers or they would flounder. The danger of catching was never higher than the 1870s when pitch speeds were on the rise, new pitches debuted such as the curve ball, and the dangerous proposition of playing right behind the batter when runners were aboard (a tactic Deacon White is credited with introducing). All this without safety equipment to protect against foul tips as would become popular (and necessary) by the 1880s and beyond. Deacon White was the gold standard, the best aspired to play like him. Deacon caught masterfully and did so for more games than anyone else in the 1870s.

Beyond his catching abilities, Deacon was also a feared hitter, often posting best or near-best numbers for his position, sometimes leading the whole league in BA, hits, RBIs, etc. Deacon White then re-invented himself as a 3rd baseman for the second half of his career (catching more games than anyone else in the 1870s did take its toll). If you dismiss his hero status of the 1870s and wipe the slate clean, Deacon was still impressive (Bill James ranks him as 76th best 3rd baseman of all time). Even when he became the oldest man in the league in 1887, he batted better than league average, heck better than the Wolverines league leading team average.

One should also note that Championships seemed to follow him around. Of course being part of two different "Big 4" moves didn't hurt. Spalding and others often wrote about his catching abilities together with his leadership on and off the field, his virtuous ways responsible for his nickname, the Deacon.

Lastly, I know N172 pose counts mean next to nothing, but it is somewhat suspicious to at least me that Deacon White was issued 9 poses when the next highest pose count for any Detroit player is 5 (Deacon White with 9, 19 other players with 5 or less). To spice up this thread and give Deacon a little love, I will post copies of all 9 poses in Studio Proof format (5 here, 4 in the next).