SABR "2010 Overlooked 19C BB Legend" Vote Results

[milkit1]

Jim McCormick wasnt even mentioned?

[GaryPassamonte]

Joe, I'll play devil's advocate on the Deacon White case. Although White was a very good player for many years, he was not great. During a 20 year career, he rarely was a league leader in either offensive or defensive categories. White's strength lies in his longevity. He built a solid career, but HOF, I'm not sure. As I stated in a prior post, White received only 1 vote in 1936 and wasn't even a suggested candidate on the ballot. He was more of a write in choice. In 1936 he was no more forgotten than any other 19th century player, so he was considered on an equal basis with the other players.
Now, my Ross Barnes plug. His career follows a path almost the opposite of White. He was the star of professional baseball from 1871-1876 and a great player. He was a league leader in almost every category. There is no disputing this. Yet, his career was soon over and he was out of baseball by age 31. In the 1936 HOF election, Barnes was a suggested candidate and received 3 votes.
We can debate whether HOF election should reward short term greatness over long term consistency all day, but in many HOF discussions on this board we usually prefer to remove the Mazeroskis and Suttons more than the Koufaxs and Josses. White's credentials are similar to Sutton's and Barnes's are similar to Koufax's. Long term consistency versus short term greatness. What's your preference?

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

I'm surprised that Deacon's brother, Will White, was not mentioned in the vote. I understand that Deacon had a far longer and more pioneering career, but Will was a great talent in his own right.

I would also have enjoyed seeing more votes for Tony Mullane. Will White, Mullane and O'Day would be my three choices for HOF enshrinement.

[Joe_G.]

Great hearing other arguments. And you Gary, you are sticking up for another one of my favorites in Ross Barnes. If I had to pick one of the two, however, I would go with Deacon White even if we only compared the two players during the nine seasons Barnes played.

Ross Barnes had some great years over his short career enjoying 3 batting titles over nine seasons. During those same baseball seasons Deacon White likewise had some good years, leading the league twice in batting average. 1876 was perhaps Barnes best, but injury and banning of the fair-foul hit would never allow him to return to his previous glory. For his career, Barnes would hit .3597 to Deacon Whites .3442 (again, comparing the same seasons). During this stretch, Deacon White actually played more which is no small feat for an 1870s catcher. A closer look at Deacon's stats show he hit best when he caught the least. In 1877 (the only season in which he didn't play most of his games catching), he led the league with a .387 BA. Had Deacon White played another position during his prime, his offensive numbers would have been more impressive. However, playing another position would have diminished Deacon's greatness for he was the game’s best catcher at a time when catching was critical to a team's success. Unfortunately, it is hard to demonstrate Deacon's defensive greatness with stats. He played the position like no other, often with higher risk than others dared (playing right behind the batter to keep runners from advancing). At times this would lead to more errors, but Deacon still averaged well under an error/game caught (remarkable considering). Personally, I'd like to see both in the HOF, but if I had to pick one, I would vote in Deacon White for his 1870s catching dominance. Add to it his offensive numbers and longevity at another position and I don't see anyone more deserving of enshrinement.

By 1936, the voters certainly didn't recall the game as it was played in the 1870s. Unfortunate for Deacon, they far more likely remembered the farce catching became during the 1890s. By then, catching was considered the place you'd stick your least talented player. Throw a couple pillows on your largest poor lug and ask him to stand in the way of every pitch. As iconic as catching was in the 1870s, it disappeared during the 1880s until by 1890 it was often made a mockery of.

[insidethewrapper]

Most historians list Deacon White as a 3rd baseman. He only played 458 games at catcher in his long career ( 29%) of his games played.
Ewing , I think the only HOF catcher (?) from the 19th Century ,played only 48% of his games at catcher !!!!
After reading a lot of 19th Century newspapers,The best catcher, in my opinion, (who was really a catcher in the 19th century) was Charlie Bennett. He played 954 games out of 1062 as catcher (89.8%).
Faber ratings have Bennett ranked 4th as catcher, behind others who only played catcher part time. I see Deacon White was ranked 6th on the 3rd baseman list according to his ranking. Good discussion.

I can't believe only 1 catcher from the 19th Century should be in the Hall of Fame and that he only catch 48% of the time.

Let's get a true catcher in the HOF from the 19th Century!!!

[oldjudge]

My list, in order of preference. The first three on the list are, in my mind, no question deserving. BTW, I think there are about 10 19th century players who deserve a spot in the HOF and I hope the veterans committee takes a careful look at them;

1. Pete Browning
2. Harry Stovey
3. Deacon White
4. Dave Orr-stroke cut career short after 8 seasons but check his record out
5. Ross Barnes
6. Dummy Hoy

[GaryPassamonte]

I believe I have said this before, but wouldn't it be nice if the HOF assembled a pioneer committee truly versed in the 19th century game and inducted a group from this era. A few years ago this was done with Negro League players.
This idea may gain some momentum in the near future as players tainted by the steroid era come up for election. The HOF will have 3 choices to ensure they will have inductees every year. I'm sure there is no desire for a year in which no one is inducted. 1. Admit HOF caliber players sullied by steroids, 2. Not admit HOF type steroid players and, instead, induct weak candidates to ensure there is an induction ceremony, or 3. encourage more inductees through the veteran's committee or some other special committee such as a 19th century committee. What do you think?

[rhettyeakley]

All of the guys being mentioned are great candidates but for my money the guy that needs to get in is Tony Mullane. He was a 30+ game winner every season from 1882-1887, except 1885 when he was "suspended" for the entire season by the American Association for completely underhanded reasons.

Had he played even to 50% of his ability through that season he would have ended with 300+ wins (instead of the 284 he currently has) and would already be a HOFer. IMO it is a total joke that he didn't get in instead of his teammate Bid McPhee. There has been a distinct bias against AA players (for the same reason Jay mentioned earlier with Browning) for way too long.
-Rhett