Great thread, what about most under rated pre-war player?

[Peter_Spaeth]

You are misstating the issue. Of course it's more likely that he would have continued. But as long as there is a doubt, I can't give him the benefit of that doubt. And there is a doubt, because it does happen that players go south. I will try to think of more examples. Perhaps you can explain why he never received a vote?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Eric Davis. Darryl Strawberry.

[D. Bergin]

Gary Templeton, Ralph Garr, Carlos Baerga


I'm sure the list could go on and on.

[Kenny Cole]

Unlike Travis, Eric Davis' career was derailed by consistent injuries -- a function of the game he was playing. I've already said that I don't give credit for that. Darryl Strawberry's career was derailed by Darryl Strawberry. He doesn't get credit for screwing himself.

However, the Cecil Travis situation is pretty much unique. The only other ballplayer I can think of whose situation is even arguably similar is Dom DiMaggio, and he too has supporters who think he should be elected to the HOF.

If you use some of Bill James' statistical projection techniques, Travis projects out to about 2800 hits and a .320+ average if he doesn't go off to war and get frostbite during the Battle of the Bulge. Those are pretty special numbers for anyone, let alone a guy who spent a lot of time at SS. He didn't post those numbers, but to me, the biggest question is why?

Cecil Travis' situation is a function of things beyond his control. If Cecil Travis dies in a car wreck in 1942, we can talk about what might have been but the context is different. He didn't die, he didn't get hurt playing baseball, he didn't hurt himself with unhealthy personal habits, and his skills as a baseball player didn't suddenly decline. His best years were effectively stolen from him by a war and the effects of a war.

To me, that is an entirely different scenario than loss of a skill set due to injury, apathy or self-abuse. However, you, and evidently the BBWAA, take the position that it doesn't matter why his numbers aren't what they should have been. I simply disagree with that analysis.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It doesn't matter to me why he didn't post the numbers, correct. The fact is, he didn't post them, and it is unreasonable to give him credit for numbers he didn't post. Baseball is too uncertain a game; too many variables.

[Kenny Cole]

That's the same type of analysis that was used as an argument against inducting the Negro Leaguers. We don't really know what their numbers were, they didn't post them in the majors, and it doesn't matter why. IMO, it does matter why. That's where you and I absolutely disagree.

[D. Bergin]

Did Cecil Travis have injury problems before the war, or was he a defensive liability...........because he only topped 140 games played twice in his career?

His career seems to track very similar to Bill Madlock, with less pop.

[Kenny Cole]

I don't get the sense that he suffered significant injury problems. He had well over 500 plate appearances every year after his first full season, when he had 400+.

I don't know how he was regarded as a fielder. His range factor and assists were pretty decent most years, but he made a fair amount of errors too. My impression, and it is simply that, is that he was average to above-average as a fielder. Never the best, but far from the worst.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

That's the same type of analysis that was used as an argument against inducting the Negro Leaguers. We don't really know what their numbers were, they didn't post them in the majors, and it doesn't matter why. IMO, it does matter why. That's where you and I absolutely disagree.

Oh come on Kenny, that is not analagous and you know it. There is a world of difference between guys that actually played and having imperfect statistics which can be supplemented with eyewitness testimony of fans and fellow players and contemporaneous press coverage, and speculating about how someone MIGHT have done IF he had played.

[Kenny Cole]

"It doesn't matter to me why he didn't post the numbers, correct. The fact is, he didn't post them, and it is unreasonable to give him credit for numbers he didn't post." That was your statement.

That is precisely the analysis that was used to support the exclusion of the Negro Leaguers from the hall. The numbers, to the extent they existed at all, were suspect because they weren't compiled against major leaguers.

Ironically, that analysis is true to some extent. None of the numbers we see from offically sanctioned negro league games are such that, in and of themselves, they provide a compelling case for induction of any given player. Due to the way the Negro Leagues were structured, not even the greatest of the Negro Leaguers has lifetime statistics that are even remotely comparable to those of contemporary major leaguers. Thus, following your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, no one gets in. They "don't get credit for numbers they didn't post" and it doesn't matter why, right? If they weren't compiled, they weren't compiled. End of story.

However, of course, that analysis is also greatly flawed because it does not take into account any of the reasons why. It doesn't take into account the thousands of barnstorming games, the exhausting conditions under which they generally had to play, the travel, or the financial instability of the teams they played for. Obviously, it also doesn't take into account the fact that blacks couldn't post major league numbers due to the existence of factors beyond their control.

That is my point. Why matters. Ultimately, though the HOF didn't want to, it was forced to to accept that why mattered insofar as at least some of the deserving Negro Leaguers were concerned. When it comes to Negro Leaguers, it appears that the why matters to you too. I think it is important with respect to the case of Cecil Travis as well.