SABR "2010 Overlooked 19C BB Legend" Vote Results

Joe_G. · #1 08-15-2010, 11:14 AM

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 · #2 08-15-2010, 11:54 AM

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 · #3 08-15-2010, 12:37 PM

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 · #4 08-15-2010, 03:19 PM

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?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Sabr pubs & auction catalogs for sale	Oldtix	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	10-14-2009 02:49 PM
O/T - SABR Publishes 2009 Baseball Guide - Its FREE	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	4	03-13-2009 05:56 AM
O/T - SABR Publishes 2009 Baseball Guide - Its FREE	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	1	03-13-2009 12:56 AM
OK, it's time to find out who's going to SABR in Toronto	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	04-06-2005 06:24 PM
SABR pub of interest / membership deadline	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	09-11-2003 05:54 PM