Dwight Evans is the very unusual player who had all of his best years in his thirties.

ROIDS!

Dwight Evans was one of my favorite non-Royals ever. He had a great arm, and like Bill says, seemed to be pretty good at just about everything. Also, he had a really funky batting stance which I loved, and a mustache just like Magnum PI and my dad.

Dwight Evans was one of my favorite non-Royals ever.

Dewey has aged exceptionally well. He is the picture of the "distinguished gentleman" and has remained in very good shape. I have had the good fortune to run into him a couple of times at Spring Training and Fenway and I have found him to be incredibly good natured and generous with his time.

It's a good analysis and all but it seems a bit arbitrary. Evans is clearly better than everyone in the comparison except Parker and Winfield. Winfield is clearly better than Evans. Winfield is in the HOF. Parker and Evans are not. I get all that. Why should Evans be in? Because 300 win shares at a .600 win percentage is a good cut-off? I would like to see justification of that cut-off. Where do other near misses stand, where do other clear selections stand, what about the borderline selections? Obviously the 'If Rice, then...' argument is not great but once Evans can be shown to be better than a few RF, or the 300 win .600 % line is clearly a cut-off then the whole Evans for the HOF argument would be better.

He doesn't quite hit everything that makes a player underrated. In particular, he wasn'tplaying in a bad hitters park. Jimmy Wynn for example has a neutralized .848 career OPS, vs. .802 actual. Evans neutralized is .846 vs. .840 actual. The article would probably have been about Wynn if James worked for the Astros.

Edited for clarity

My first favorite player, and the subject of my first baseball memory (he led off the '86 season with a home run - I was a couple weeks short of my 5th birthday, but still remember yelling to my mom "Dwight Evans hit a home run!!").

Evans was a corner outfielder in Fenway who didn't hit 20 HR until his 6th full season, didn't score 100 runs until his 10th full season, didn't drive in 100 until his 12th full season, and didn't hit 0.300 until his 15th full season. By the time he was performing as a star, most people had already locked into the view that he was merely a solid (but not great) player.

It's wrong and (once defense is included) he should have done better on the HOF ballot, but it's not exactly hard to see why it happened.

I've always thought that one of Dwight's biggest problems was people confusing him with Darrell Evans, a similar player with an even lower batting average but, if anything, even more defensive value. Darrell is cited by Bill James (Historical Abstract) as the single most underrated player ever, and here he is with an argument that Dwight was one of the most underrated. The two players were close contemporaries, although in different leagues, and they produced similar seasons with the same characteristic of doing everything pretty well but no one thing so well that it would burn itself into fan and writer consciousness. My personal opinion is that Darrell is a clear HoFer and Dwight is borderline, but I would think it great if they somehow got voted in and inducted at the same time. - Brock Hanke

I've always thought that one of Dwight's biggest problems was people confusing him with Darrell Evans, a similar player with an even lower batting average but, if anything, even more defensive value. Darrell is cited by Bill James (Historical Abstract) as the single most underrated player ever, and here he is with an argument that Dwight was one of the most underrated. The two players were close contemporaries, although in different leagues, and they produced similar seasons with the same characteristic of doing everything pretty well but no one thing so well that it would burn itself into fan and writer consciousness. My personal opinion is that Darrell is a clear HoFer and Dwight is borderline, but I would think it great if they somehow got voted in and inducted at the same time. - Brock Hanke

Not to mention confusion with their 70's contemporary JJ Evans who had a couple of dynamite seasons and then fell off the map.

Rice and Sutter, don't be uptight, 'cause here comes KID ... DYNOMITE!!!!!!!

That article would've been awesome in an old Baseball Abstract but seems outdated compared to a straightforward WAR argument.

If James isn't employed by the Red Sox, I'm sure he compares him favorably vs. Jim Rice. How else can you avoid the temptation of comparing two OFs who played together for 16 years?

Plus, it's odd how relatively different the Fangraphs WAR rankings are from his results - it has Evans as higher than Winfield in WAR (71 vs. 67) and Parker way below it (45). Baseball Reference WAR mirrors the FanGraphs WAR story for those three.

As a big Red Sox fan during Evans' entire career, I think James and many others are missing the major reason why Evans is underrated with respect to Rice. For the most part, Rice's best years coincided with the best years for the team, while Evans was a very good player on some pretty irrelevant teams.

I am not suggesting that this is anything other than a coincidence, but when the Red Sox were playing meaningful September games (1975, 77-79, 86), Rice was an important part of those teams. Evans was not close to Rice as a player in those years. In all the other years, when the Red Sox were generally winning 80 games and finished fourth, Evans crushes Rice.

It is not that people are purposefully penalizing Evans. Its just that they remember the big Rice years more because they were, for the Red Sox, more interesting seasons.

As a big Red Sox fan during Evans' entire career, I think James and many others are missing the major reason why Evans is underrated with respect to Rice. For the most part, Rice's best years coincided with the best years for the team, while Evans was a very good player on some pretty irrelevant teams.

True, but Evans OPS'd .900+ in 2 of the greatest World Series ever. And he made one of the greatest catches in MLB history in Game 6 1975.

In fact, if Jack Morris can get in on the strength of Game 7 1991, why shouldn't Dewey get in based on his performance in the 1975 World Series?

I think James and many others are missing the major reason why Evans is underrated with respect to Rice. For the most part, Rice's best years coincided with the best years for the team, while Evans was a very good player on some pretty irrelevant teams.

That might be a small piece, but the major reason? Naah.

1 and 1A are Rice being a very good hitter pretty much right out of the gate, and Rice putting up much prettier looking triple-crown numbers.

I don't really disagree with the conclusion, but it seems that the last paragraph is a bit strange. He says Evans had a "career won-lost contribution of 323-183" and then talks about "300 wins is a Hall of Famer". Well, aren't those 323 win shares equal to 1/3 of win each? So we're really talking about 108 wins? It seems to be a hand-wavy comparison to 300 pitcher wins. Or if not, where is the justification for 300 win shares being HOF-worthy?

One of my favorite memories of Dewey was the three-run jack he hit in the Rocket's first 20-K game. What goes down as an amazing accomplishment for Roger was almost a loss because he gave up a 7th inning homer to Gorman Thomas.

I used to mimic his batting stance (pigeon-toed, front foot resting on the ball of the foot) from little league through high school. It served me well.

Rusty Staub had a better 5 year offensive peak than either Evans, and his 10 year peak was as good as Dewey's. Too bad Le Grande Orange couldn't run. Anyone know Rusty's career win shares' total?

. . . I have found him to be incredibly good natured and generous with his time.

There's the problem - he wasn't feared.

Evans was such a good outfielder that he could likely have played center field on a regular basis and done a passable job. He also had one of the greatest arms I've ever seen, not as good as Clemente's, but not that far off. He'd have my vote for the Hall of Fame.

he led off the '86 season with a home run

On the first pitch.
Of the whole MLB season. (theirs started before all others that year)
Off Jack Morris.

My all-time favorite ballplayer. He led the AL in HR's in a strike year.

I remain unconvinced of Evans as a HOFer. He had a long career, but very rarely during that career was he one of his league's best players. He had 2nd, 5th and 10th finishes for WAR for position players, and 2nd, 4th, 5th and 5th for Offensive WAR. Good, but borderline HOF level.

Compare with Parker (1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th) and (1st and 3rd) respectively. Or Jimmy Wynn (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 10th) and (1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th and 6th). Or Larry Walker (3rd, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th) and (2nd, 7th, and 10th). Or Lance Berkamn (4th, 9th, 10th and 10th) and (4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 10th). Or Vlad (2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th) and (3rd, 7th and 9th).

These are all excellent players, as was Evans but my point has always been that every inch you extend the HOF line, the number of players that qualify grow in increasing amounts. At the Evans level, the number of players is fairly large. Another inch above at the Tony Gwynn level (value wise) and the hall becomes considerably smaller.

meh

He - and "brother" Darrell - had not a ton of trouble getting into the Hall of Merit, and that's fine.

But Hall of Fame?

Pass.

My all-time favorite ballplayer. He led the AL in HR's in a strike year.

He had company (I remember Grich and Murray, but I'm drawing a blank on the fourth).

He had company (I remember Grich and Murray, but I'm drawing a blank on the fourth).

Tony Armas, Jr.'s dad.

I don't really disagree with the conclusion, but it seems that the last paragraph is a bit strange. He says Evans had a "career won-lost contribution of 323-183" and then talks about "300 wins is a Hall of Famer". Well, aren't those 323 win shares equal to 1/3 of win each? So we're really talking about 108 wins? It seems to be a hand-wavy comparison to 300 pitcher wins. Or if not, where is the justification for 300 win shares being HOF-worthy?


It's just an easy marker for comparison, not intended to be the most rigorous of tools.

Anyone know Rusty's career win shares' total?

Rusty had 358, compared to Dwight's 347. Darrell had 363. These are all modified now, with Win & Loss shares.

Well, aren't those 323 win shares equal to 1/3 of win each? So we're really talking about 108 wins?

There are three concepts at play here:

- Pitcher Wins (the stat that counts a complete game 1-0 victory the same as leaving after 5 with a 9-8 lead that the bullpen manages to hold)

- "true" Wins (which are considerably lesser than Pitcher Wins, in the modern environment)

- Win Shares (which are one-third of "true" wins)

Earlier in the article he translates Win Shares into Pitcher Wins, and it's around an 8-to-7 ratio. He does this because there's already some consensus around a HOF line for pitchers based on Pitcher Wins: 300 is considered a HOF lock, or at least close to it. 300 Pitcher Wins is roughly the same as 343 Win Shares.

The hand-wavy part is his explanation of his point, not the point itself.

Evans was a corner outfielder in Fenway who didn't hit 20 HR until his 6th full season, didn't score 100 runs until his 10th full season, didn't drive in 100 until his 12th full season, and didn't hit 0.300 until his 15th full season. By the time he was performing as a star, most people had already locked into the view that he was merely a solid (but not great) player.

It's wrong and (once defense is included) he should have done better on the HOF ballot, but it's not exactly hard to see why it happened.

James says this, more or less, in the article.

I've always thought that one of Dwight's biggest problems was people confusing him with Darrell Evans, a similar player with an even lower batting average

way back in the mists of time, before the internet, there were newspapers, and every Sunday during the season they ran stats for the whole league, and I would pour over that for hours (the main source for career stats were baseball cards).

How did one tell D.Evans apart from D.Evans? Well one was AL and one was NL, how did you tell them apart when Darrell was in Detroit? That was a bit trickier... I vaguely recall that after maybe a year, Darrell became Da.Evans and Dewey became Dw.Evans... Around the same time both L.Parrishs became La.Parrish which was not much help at all.

My first recollection of hearing about Dewey was in a Baseball Digest article after the 1975 Series, Sparky Anderson was asked what he thought about the Sox young stars (obviously meaning Lynn and Rice), Anderson said the guy he was really impressed with was Dwight Evans, aomething like, "that young man is going to be some ball player"- the writer's tone was a bit amused, Sparky being Sparky...

Dewey never reached 600 PAs until 1982 (he would have in 1981), he's *missing* maybe 500-750 PAs... not enough to get him close to 3000 hits, but 400 Hrs would have been likely

Career shape very similar to Paul O'Neill

Dewey never reached 600 PAs until 1982 (he would have in 1981), he's *missing* maybe 500-750 PAs... not enough to get him close to 3000 hits, but 400 Hrs would have been likely

The 1978 beaning might have derailed that Cooperstown career, though it's possible he doesn't realize his full potential anyway until hooking up with Hriniak.

On the first pitch.
Of the whole MLB season. (theirs started before all others that year)
Off Jack Morris.

That's unpossible. Morris pitched to the score and wouldn't have allowed a HR in a 0-0 game.

Evans was a corner outfielder in Fenway who didn't hit 20 HR until his 6th full season, didn't score 100 runs until his 10th full season, didn't drive in 100 until his 12th full season, and didn't hit 0.300 until his 15th full season. By the time he was performing as a star, most people had already locked into the view that he was merely a solid (but not great) player.

It's wrong and (once defense is included) he should have done better on the HOF ballot, but it's not exactly hard to see why it happened.

James says this, more or less, in the article.

I think James says that, verbatim, in the NBJHA.

By the time he was performing as a star, most people had already locked into the view that he was merely a solid (but not great) player.

I see this argument a lot, and I don't doubt it, but (observationally) it strikes me that current arguments for the Hall of Fame work exactly in the opposite way. Tim Raines had a wonderful early peak, but then hung around for so long that pundits seem to forget what he was in his heyday. Talking heads' discussion of Andruw Jones makes me think he may have the same problem by the time he gets to a ballot.

In comparison, although I've heard a lot of arguments against Jeff Kent, they are usually based on poor defense or potential PED usage, and he is generally considered to be the player he was in his 30s.

Evans was a corner outfielder in Fenway who didn't hit 20 HR until his 6th full season, didn't score 100 runs until his 10th full season, didn't drive in 100 until his 12th full season, and didn't hit 0.300 until his 15th full season. By the time he was performing as a star, most people had already locked into the view that he was merely a solid (but not great) player.

We talk a lot here about how the 94-95 work stoppages hurt and may end up killing various players HOF chances. The same is true for 1981. Give Evans a .296/.415/.522 line with 33 HR, 106 RBI, 126 runs, and 128 walks in 1981 and that might have given him the extra boost needed to build a case. Bobby grich looks a lot more appealing with another 30 HR season as well. Of course Morris gets another 20 win season, so maybe it's all for the best.

That's unpossible. Morris pitched to the score and wouldn't have allowed a HR in a 0-0 game.

Jack pitched to the EVENTUAL score. Why would you assume such a magnificent creature lacks foresight?

Tigers won the game 6-5. Evans' HR was meaningless, as were the other 3 hit off him that day. Morris got the W, just one of 254.

I couldn't resist throwing some of these guys into the uber-stat blender.
I included Evans, Winfield, Parker, and Cedeno from the article.
I added in Reggie and Dawson as well as BWilliams, LWalker, Sosa, Lofton, Giles, Rice, and Oliver. Using 6 uber-stats set to bench/replacement player and then using the top of each as the baseline to create a percentage, here are their percentages:

Reggie Jackson 100.00
Billy Williams 82.17
Dave Winfield 81.72
Larry Walker 81.62
Dwight Evans 80.09
Sammy Sosa 73.52
Andre Dawson 70.11
Kenny Lofton 69.59
Brian Giles 65.58
Cesar Cedeno 64.71
Jim Rice 55.94
Al Oliver 54.14
Dave Parker 53.22

So, obviously Reggie was going to be tops, but I was intrigued how close Williams, Winfield, Walker, and Evans are.
And this really emphasizes to me WHY I'm so skeptical of Bill James' talking up Parker as being a viable player to consider for the Hall of Fame.

Well Parker's case is clearly a "peak" case in that Parker over a stretch of several years was clearly in the argument for the best player in his league in a way that Evans never really was.

I don't think Parker's an HOFer either because the peak is all he's got and it ain't a legendary peak anyway.

I view Evans as one of about 50 players who I'd be fine with going into the hall. Players who don't lower the standards of the place. Among this group, only Jeff Bagwell is a sure thing who should be in. And he may get there by the BBWAA, we'll just have to see if he can keep gaining votes with the upcoming crowded ballots.

This is not a WAR list. WAR was a consideration, but as I looked down the list I left off some that I don't see a great case for and bumped others up for peak value, playoff performance, or unjustified personal opinion. I don't advocate all of these people, but I don't find any to be particularly objectionable.

The list:
Pitchers: Reuschel, Brown, Tiant, John, Cone, Saberhagen, Steib, Hershiser, Shocker, Guidry, Ferrell, Kaat.

Urban Shocker is a guy who I thought would have been in. Seems like enough pitchers from his time period with similar big years and high winning % get their call. Shocker has these things going for him: The name, being a 27 Yankee, 4 20 win seasons, 124 ERA+, .615 winning pct. He never got even 2 percent of the votes.

Catchers: Torre, Simmons, Munson, Freehan

1B/DH: Bagwell, Edgar, Palmeiro, McGwire, Allen, Hernandez, W Clark, McGriff, Hodges

2B: Whitaker, Grich, Randolph

SS: Dahlen, Trammell, Campy, Concepcion, Fregosi

3B: Nettles, Bell, Boyer, Da Evans

OF: Oliva, Murphy, Walker, Raines, R Smith, Evans, Wynn, Magee, Minoso, Pinson, Bernie, Lynn

OF: Oliva, Murphy, Walker, Raines, R Smith, Evans, Wynn, Magee, Minoso, Pinson, Bernie, Lynn

Do you think diminutive nicknames hurt one's reputation in some subconscious fashion? Tony, Larry, Reggie, Dewey, Jimmy, Sherry, Minnie, and Bernie want to know.

SS: Dahlen

Is this a mistake? You know, he did play most of his career in the 19th century.

Billy Dahlen?

OK, so maybe he wasn't feared, exactly, but Jose Cruuuuuuuz was definitely better than some of these guys: Parker, Oliver, Rice, Giles, maybe Cedeno and Dawson.

I loved having him on the 'Stros, but it's funny to think that if he'd spent his on the Yankees or BoSox he might be in the Hall right now.

Oh, yeah Jose Cruz... I should add him in. And earlier someone mentioned Rusty Staub. I should add him in as well.
I would guess Cruz will fare about as well Parker, Rice, and Oliver... so I don't think he will do as well as you expect but I hope I'm wrong because he was one of my favorite players as a kid.

And (using my same method in post 36):
Jose Cruz 68.19
Rusty Staub 65.38.

So Cruz is just below Dawson and Lofton and a bit ahead of Giles and Cedeno.
And Staub scores just behind Giles and ahead of Cedeno.

#40 Agreed. He's an interesting case. There's little doubt that people who saw both of them play thought that Herman Long was the better player. Long is the highest vote getter (19.9%) of the 1936 Veterans Committee not to make the hall. (and was a long-time favorite of Bill James)

A big part of this is timing. Long had his best years when offensive levels were very high and he played in a really good hitter's park for a very good team. He also had a really long decline phase -- he was done as an elite player at 31 and hung on for 3235 plate appearances of 75 OPS+ by a below average defensive shortstop.

Dahlen by contrast had an unusually gentle decline and thus does very well for those who only look at career WAR.

Dahlen may well have been the first player hit by the character clause though. Articles of the day focused more on his temper and attitude than his play. To quote from a review of Bad Bill Dahlen, "He was often nonchalant and unfocused, showing up minutes before a game. He was rumored to get himself ejected so he could get to the racetrack. He was feisty, and abusive towards umpires even by today's standards." (Another advocacy article calls his "anti-social" -- I think it's easy to substantiate this, but there's another side to the story. He was the go to guy for charitable events as well. Assuming it didn't conflict with his time at the track.)

He got ejected an awful lot. I believe the 65 that's generally quoted just counts his total as manager but I'm not sure. "Bad Bill Dahlen" notes that he was "frequently accused of not having his head completely in the game" and one example that was a series in which Dahlen got caught by the hidden ball trick (and was ejected arguing the play), next game he made 4 errors and ... well you can call it a baserunning error I guess. He was tripped rounding third and tagged out (ah, 1890s baseball). There were stories that he was talking to his wife (trying to reconcile) rather than paying attention to the game.

He actually picked up a team suspension when he had a clump of ejections (seemingly not all his fault. He had a lot of problems with one ump in particular and that guy was fired at the end of the year)

Don't know what weight to put on this. Contemporary opinion was simply wrong. He was a better player than Long.

That said, frequent ejections hurt the team. Fighting with the manager? Reputation for goofing off during the game? Reputation for being more interested in getting to the track than in the game? Well none of that is positive, that's for sure. His rep was a mixture of Milton Bradley and ... I don't know maybe Hanley Ramirez, with a seasoning of Rogers Hornsby or Dick Allen.

Doesn't matter to me because I don't think he belongs in the hall based on his play. As I've said before, I think the 19th century is over-represented as it is. The structure of the game is such that only the absolute top tier merit inclusion (and I'm not a straight career value voter in any case. 19th to early 20th century accumulators don't float my boat)

Tony, Larry, Reggie, Dewey, Jimmy, Sherry, Minnie, and Bernie want to know.

Babe says nah. Heinie just giggles.

#39 From the Nicknames of the 30s in the first Historical Abstract

Left-handed pitcher: Gimpy
Right-handed pitcher: Wimpy
Catcher: Blimp
First base: Stinky
Second base: Inkie
Third base: Pinkie
Shortstop: Rowdy Richard
Left field: Twitchy
Center field: Snooker
Right Field: Ducky Wucky

EDIT: It did take Ducky Wucky an awfully long time (and a nickname change -- to Ducky) to make the hall. None of the others are in. Not that any of the others deserve to be, though Bartell can be sensibly compared to most of the weaker choices at SS.

#40 Agreed.

Actually, that was my weak attempt at sarcasm. Dahlen is the only player from the 19th century on the list in #38. Ugh. In fact, he found only four players who should be in the Hall from the first eight decades of pro ball (1870's to 1940's): Dahlen, Magee, Shocker and Ferrell (Hodges and Minoso are 1950's).

As I've argued before, the HOF has only made sporadic, half-hearted stabs at honoring the greats of the 19th century. There are many other overlooked "top-tier" players besides Dahlen who deserve enshrinement: Deacon White, Paul Hines, Bob Caruthers, Ross Barnes, Charlie Bennett, Harry Stovey, George Gore, Dickey Pearce and Jack Glasscock would be a good start. Most of these not only have great numbers but great narratives as well.

As it did for Negro leaguers a decade ago, the Hall needs to establish a scholarly committee to focus on the 19th century and bring to light the unknown greats of that era. It's not hard to identify many more than four pre-1950 stars, above AROM's Fregosi-Lynn-Guidry level, that the HOF has missed.

#40 (I know you were intending sarcasm. But ... a good straight line is not to be ignored)

As I've argued before, people who argue as you do simply don't allow for the fact that in 19th century baseball the top talent wasn't close to being fully concentrated in the major leagues.

So players that you list have a playing record that is consistent with a HOF career provided it was accumulated against top tier opposition. But it wasn't.

And frankly I think the notion that Ross barnes is a HOFer is nuts. Playing a game that was vaguely similar to what we call baseball against random strength opposition -- but on the average roughly AA strength -- he mastered a specific skill that has no part of baseball as we understand it and was gone as soon as it was no longer part of the game.

Hogwash. Barnes was felled by illness -- his entire game cratered after '76, not just his hitting. And the shape of his production isn't consistent with his being a creation of the fair-foul hit in the first place.

the top talent wasn't close to being fully concentrated in the major leagues.

The same is true today. The majority of the world's potentially top players are not in MLB today. They're playing another sport, or scraping to feed their family in some impoverished nation.

Anyway, this is the classic "age discrimination" argument: you blame Barnes for being born too soon. Barnes and other 19th century stars were at the top of the top league of their day. Where else were they supposed to play? Either you try to honor the best players of each era or you don't.

The HOF has never really tried to identify and honor the best of the 19th century. "Preserving history"? Meh.

Dan no I don't blame Barnes for being born too soon. As I said I think the people who argue as you do simply don't acknowledge that the structure of the game is substantially different.

Take 1878 as an example. Baseball-reference has Tommy Bond as the most valuable pitcher in baseball. I'm 100% clear that this is wrong. Pud Galvin had 111 complete games that year -- and pitched better than he did in 1879. (Of course he couldn't have compiled that number in the NL -- the IL played more league games than the NL. The structure of the game was such that it was often more profitable for NL teams to play exhibitions against non-league teams)

How good was Buffalo that year? Probably about as good as Providence. Certainly better than Indianapolis. Certainly better than the competition that Barnes played against in his NA days.

Thing is that we really only know this because Galvin was such a central figure to the early game. What about the top players in Kansas or California or ... (and yes, I'm well aware that population distributions were different)

The NL (and its competitors) didn't have close to all of the top players actually playing the game. Nor did the NA. Never mind inane arguments about about potentially top players doing something else today. That's beneath you.

No. 3 (Jacksone)
James has three standards that he uses, two of which are 300 total Win Shares, 100 more Win Shares than Loss Shares.. The key point is that 300 Win Shares is analagous to a 100-win season for a team, and a team that wins 100 games can be said to be a pennant-winning caliber team. +100 Win Shares is analogous to a +33-win team - a 98-64 season. Again, a pennant-winning caliber team. So a Hall of Fame caliber player is one who is his own pennant-winning team.

No. 36 Leiam
James doesn't really advocate Parker for the Hall of Fame. In another essay, he writes that Parker almost defines the over/under line. And, as I'm sure you're aware, James doesn't advocate for a hard over/under line. Parker is a player who can be discussed for HOF candidacy. Evans, on the other hand, is a well-above-the-borderline HOF candidate.

I've always thought that one of Dwight's biggest problems was people confusing him with Darrell Evans

I think it was only a few years ago that I realized they WEREN'T the same person, in that "Dwight" wasn't a nickname for Darrell.

I had never seen a picture of either of them, and I wasn't really keeping track of which retired players used to play for which teams.

Ron, I had no idea about Galvin's record in 1878. The minor league stats of that league are not on BB-ref (though the roster is). I did find this : http://research.sabr.org/journals/first-great-minor-league-club

The real story of the 1878 Bisons was Jim Galvin, the stocky, mild-mannered pitcher with a buggy whip for an arm. It is doubtful if any pitcher in baseball history, including Charles Radbourn's singular role with Providence in 1884, ever had a year to match Galvin's 1878 iron-man performance. Of the total 116 league and non-league games played by the Bisons, he pitched in 101, of which 96 were complete. He won 72 games, lost 25 and tied three. Seventeen of his wins were shutouts and he was 10-5 against National League clubs. He started and finished the first 23 games the team played and was finally relieved by McGunnigle in the 24th. The next day he "rested" by starting in right field, but then came on in relief. From September 2 to October 4, the Bisons played 22 games and Galvin started and finished every one of them. On October 2, he beat Boston in the 12-inning game mentioned above; the next day he beat Providence in 13 innings, and then the following day was the loser in another game at Boston, after which it was announced he had a sore arm. McGunnigle pitched the next two games, but Galvin came back on October 8 to beat Utica in the game that clinched the International Association pennant for Buffalo.

How many innings did Galvin pitch that season? Unfortunately, the box scores of his five incomplete games do not indicate the number of innings he pitched. It can be stated, however, that he pitched a minimum of 895 innings and a maximum of 905.

I'm generally agnostic on how many 19th century guys should be in the HOF. I don't particularly care if timelining would suggest that most of the guys who were outstanding players in that time would not be good enough to play today. I think they should be honored for being the important players of their own time. But you didn't have the same efficiency in getting the best players of that time into the majors that you do today, and in so many aspects it is a different game. Galvin was pitching from 45 feet. And there is no way that any of these guys would ever approach 500 innings or so today, the monstrous durability that makes their statistical value look so good compared to the moderns. I don't think I know how to balance all the issues and say whether there should be more or less 19th century guys in the hall.

I picked Dahlen in my list because he stands out. Looking at all players born before 1875 and not in the hall, Dahlen leads with 76 WAR. That's 17 ahead of Jack Glasscock (huhuhuhuhuh) at 59, and then I've got 16 guys in the 40's.

Dahlen's not a great peak guy but it seems I have more respect for his longevity than you do, for a guy who was able to play every day at shortstop till he was 38. You say 19th century accumulators don't float your boat, but very few players can do this today, and even fewer did when Dahlen was playing. I respect this 19th century accumulor because he's pretty much the only one who fits that description.

I also see him as very similar to Alan Trammell. Good all around players, not a specific standout skill but good at everything, career OPS+ of 109 vs 110, above average defense. Career year OPS+ of 156 vs 154. He wasn't as good as Trammell because of the increase in playing talent over the century, but his place in baseball history is the same.

Beyond Dahlen, I defer to the 19th century experts on who are the ones who are most over looked. Between Glasscock, Cupid Childs, Mike Tiernan, Lave Cross, Deacon White, Paul Hines, Charlie Bennett, Pete Browning, and a bunch that I'm sure I'm overlooking, I don't know who the most deserving are.

The list:
Pitchers: Reuschel, Brown, Tiant, John, Cone, Saberhagen, Steib, Hershiser, Shocker, Guidry, Ferrell, Kaat.

I'm surprised that Gooden isn't in that list. He's a pretty good comp for several of those pitchers, especially Guidry and Hershiser.

I don't see that many terrible mistakes among the 19th C guys who were elected. Only Tommy McCarthy among the position players.

The NL (and its competitors) didn't have close to all of the top players actually playing the game. Nor did the NA. Never mind inane arguments about about potentially top players doing something else today. That's beneath you.

Clearly, inanity is in the eye of the beholder.

people who argue as you do simply don't acknowledge that the structure of the game is substantially different.

I have no problem acknowledging this fact. I'm saying it just isn't germane as to whether or not Barnes deserves to be in the HOF.

Again, where else was Barnes supposed to play? What could he have done to prove to you that he was deserving of the HOF? Apparently nothing, since he is already automatically disqualified due to the game's structure and the rules that he played under.

I will go so far as to admit I don't believe that the number of players of the 19th century that should be honored should be as many as what we see in the 20th century, due to the reasons you cite. But I am saying that there should be more; that due to lack of care by the HOF many top tier stars from the game's earliest era have been missed.

All that the HOF should do is try to live up to its responsibility as baseball's reservoir of history and honor the greatest players of each era. It has largely failed to do this for the era 1869 to 1889.

The same is true today. The majority of the world's potentially top players are not in MLB today. They're playing another sport, or scraping to feed their family in some impoverished nation.

Okay, how about a restatement so that it can't be rephrased as an obvious pointless tautology. At that time, the top people whose aspirations were to play baseball for a living were not concentrated in the major leagues.

I think it was only a few years ago that I realized they WEREN'T the same person, in that "Dwight" wasn't a nickname for Darrell.

And then once you finally figure out which one is which, you have to remember which one people mean when they say "Dewey".

I'm surprised that Gooden isn't in that list. He's a pretty good comp for several of those pitchers, especially Guidry and Hershiser.

You're right. Just goes to show how many good players there are who have reasonable HOF arguments. Comparing Gooden to those guys, it seems like good gradual start - GREAT PEAK - decline registers better than GREAT PEAK - disappointing decline from what should have been an alltime great.

Frank Tanana's another one. He ended his career as a long time accumulator, but his age 21-23 seasons were on hell of a peak.

nice article, even if it doesn't really convince me. To be honest it did a better job of making me appreciate Cedeno's career more, and I think it argues Cedeno for the hall, that was a pretty nice peak at the beginning of his career.

I don't think Evans would hurt the hall if he went in(not in the way that Rice or a Morris inclusion does) but I don't know if I really consider him to be a mistake as much as a borderline. I prefer to argue for what appears to be clear mistakes (Simmons, Brown, Blyleven, Santo, Bagwell, Trammell/Whitaker etc) or argue against clear mistakes(Rice, Morris, Sutter, Mattingly etc) The borderline arguments really break down into an individual(arguer) perception of what is important, why Evans and not Raines? Parker? etc.

I couldn't resist one more uber-stat blender.
I decided to try and list key RF who have played in the majors since 1980 (because that's my first year following baseball).
This includes the tale end of careers lasting to 1980.

OH, and sptaylor #53:
I understand that James isn't saying that Parker SHOULD be in the Hall of Fame but to me he's not that close. For example, I think Jim Rice was a clear mistake and that's about where I see Parker.

Anyway, here's my crazy list:
Reggie Jackson 98.62
Gary Sheffield 91.71
Tony Gwynn 86.32
Dave Winfield 80.56
Larry Walker 80.44
Dwight Evans 78.86
Reggie Smith 78.77
Bobby Abreu 73.61
Sammy Sosa 72.41
Bobby Bonds 72.18
Vladimir Guerrero 72.14
Andre Dawson 69.09
Jack Clark 67.32
Rusty Staub 64.47
Ken Singleton 60.22
Ichiro Suzuki 59.33
Darryl Strawberry 55.01
Jose Canseco 54.85
Harold Baines 52.52
Dave Parker 52.52
Paul O'Neill 52.43
David Justice 50.85
Tim Salmon 50.75
Bobby Murcer 48.07
Magglio Ordonez 45.69
Juan Gonzalez 45.50
Ken Griffey, Sr 45.26
Shawn Green 45.07

I'm sure I'm missing some players and I know that Dawson and RSmith are elsewhere argued to be better considered as CF instead of RF (due to more value despite less playing time) but... I didn't want to get into all of that. Oh, and one final note: REggie Jackson was tops in 4 of the 6 systems I included with Gary Sheffield tops in the other 2.

And I have to strongly agree with Dan G that the Hall of Fame is lacking in 19th century players such as he listed in comment
#48!

I'm sure I'm missing some players

Cesar Cedeno? who was on your original list but somehow dropped off on here.

What could he have done to prove to you that he was deserving of the HOF? Apparently nothing, since he is already automatically disqualified due to the game's structure and the rules that he played under.


I can't speak for the poster this question was directed at, but for me playing more than 9 years would be a good start. Was Ross Barnes even eligible for the HOF? I thought the minimum cutoff was 10 seasons.

He had a whopping 2507 PA's, an extremely low number even compared to the other stars of his own era. What would be the modern equivalent, maybe 5000 PA's? McGwire is criticized for his short career, and he's got 7660. Kiner had 7 straight HR titles and still took a long time to get elected (and is viewed as a mistake by some) cuz of his short career, and he still had 6256. Dick Allen never got elected in large part due to his short career, and he still had 7314.

Even after making adjustments, I can't see a modern star getting elected with that short of a career. Barnes isn't a HOFer.

@cardsfanboy #63
Yeah, I knocked off some of the players on my original list. The new list I was trying to come up with players who were primarily Right Fielders and since Cedeno was primarily a CenterFielder I didn't include him on the new list.

#57 Bill James has insisted that McCarthy isn't in the Hall for his playing record, he's in for inventing the hit and run.

To my mind it's a different goofy reason for election. I can't rule out that it was a practical joke by the 1946 Veterans Committee. Man did they do an awful job.

What could he have done to prove to you that he was deserving of the HOF? Apparently nothing

About right. But great play past the age of 26 would help. Whether he was derailed by rule change or illness doesn't matter to me. The way I see it, he chewed up AA and disappeared.

#64 Well there is Al Spalding, but he's in as a pioneer/executive. NA time wouldn't have counted in any case though. Wasn't recognized as a major league.

Mind you, Barnes did get 3 votes in 1936 (well before the rules as we know them were in place) and now Barnes is only going to get in via some kind of special committee which is going to come with its own guidelines.

3 doesn't sound like a lot of support but he was competing against all of the 19th century players (and the guys who started in the 1890s who ended up somewhat screwed because it wasn't clear which group of voters were supposed to consider them) It did tie him with Kid Nichols for instance. And it's one more vote than either Billy Hamilton or Dan Brouthers got.

AROM, my source for Galvin's stats was the book "The Minors". Sounds like there's been further research, but Galvin's numbers still haven't been nailed down completely.

I can't speak for the poster this question was directed at, but for me playing more than 9 years would be a good start...Barnes isn't a HOFer.

The arguments against Barnes being in the Hall of Fame boil down to nothing other than he was born too soon, a thoroughly unjust assessment, IMO.

By the standards of the times, he had a long career, 12 years, plus two more lost to injury. He played at the highest competition level that existed and he dominated.

You say those leagues were weak in comparison to what would come later? Well, duh, the game progresses and improves. In 130 years, are you gonna throw Ripken out of the Hall because he wouldn't be a superstar in the level of play in 2142?

You say Barnes didn't play a lot of games? Again, this was simply the time he lived in. And actually, he played hundreds more games than are in the "official" record, because in the 1870's teams played more non-league games. The line between "professional" and "amateur" was not so sharply drawn.

You say he exploited an archaic rule to achieve dominance? Every great player looks to excel given the rules and norms of the time. Given his reputed athleticism and all-around game, I think the burden of proof is on those he think he WOULD NOT have been a dominant player without the fair/foul rule.

Barnes was a superstar in his time. The statistical and anecdotal records agree on this. Every player who ever dominated his league for as long has been enshrined in Cooperstown.

Barnes was elected to the Hall of Merit in their inaugural year, in a four-man class with Deacon White, Paul Hines and George Gore, and ahead of G. Wright, Radbourn, Start, Galvin, Pike, Welch and many other early greats. Here is his plaque at the HoM:

Ross Barnes - elected 1898 - 2B/SS
10.8 seasons with: Rockford 1868-70, Boston (NA: 1871-75; NL 1881); Chicago (NL) 1876-77; Cincinnati (NL) 1879
Cap: Boston Red Stockings (NA)

The hitting star of the National Association (he hit over .400 four times and owns many of the major offensive records for that league) and the inaugural season of the NL (highlighted by his .429 BA and the first home run credited for that league), the right-handed Barnes excelled at utilizing the fair-foul hit and scientific hitting as a major part of his offensive attack. The best player in the game from 1871-76, his run through 1876 was a peak achieved by only the greatest players in the history of the game. An outstanding and graceful defensive second baseman as well (Barnes led the NA in putouts once, fielding percentage twice, assists 4 times, and double plays 3 times, as well as once in fielding percentage in the NL), he was a member of baseball’s first great keystone combination due to his speed, range, accuracy, and smarts. A starter for 5 consecutive pennant winners (1872-76), he was a member of Boston’s “Big Four” from the early 1870’s. STATS, Inc. NL MVP 1876. STATS, Inc. Second Baseman (1876). Win Shares Silver Slugger Award (1876). NA leader in BA (1872-73), OBP (1873, 1875), SLG (1872-73), Games (1873), Runs (1871, 1873, 1875), Hits (1872-73, 1875), TB (1871-73), 2B (1872-73), BB (1873), SB (1873), Singles (1875), OPS, Adj. OPS+ (1872-73), XBH (1872-73) and Times on Base (1871-73, 1875). NL leader for BA, OBP, SLG, Runs, Hits, TB, 2B, 3B, BB, Singles, OPS, Adj. OPS+, XBH, and Times on Base in 1876. Retired with the single-season record for runs per game (1.91 in 1876)

By the standards of the times, he had a long career, 12 years, plus two more lost to injury. He played at the highest competition level that existed and he dominated.

Where can you find the numbers for those extra 3 seasons? BBRef only shows him as playing 9. If he played additional years in a non major league, I don't see why that should count any more than a modern player playing in Japan or Central America or anywhere else.

You say those leagues were weak in comparison to what would come later? Well, duh, the game progresses and improves. In 130 years, are you gonna throw Ripken out of the Hall because he wouldn't be a superstar in the level of play in 2142?

No one is arguing in favor of throwing anyone out of the Hall. They're arguing against inducting someone that hasn't been elected, someone who started his career 140 years ago and died almost 100 years ago. Big difference. To make so many adjustments to justify electing someone so long since forgotten just seems kinda pointless, IMHO.

The line between "professional" and "amateur" was not so sharply drawn.

Exactly. Which is why 19th century numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. If a team loses a player to injury, they could probably have just put a "help wanted" ad in the newspaper and gotten someone else off the street to replace them without hardly missing a beat.

Booey, if you agree that "The line between "professional" and "amateur" was not so sharply drawn.", then you should agree that Ross Barnes playing in "non-major leagues" is not that different from him playing in major leagues, and we should include all available stats for those leagues.

And we do give modern players credit for playing in Japan or Central America, don't we? Or at least the HoM does.

What were the 3 extra years of Barnes on on bbref? Were they before 1871? If so they aren't on bbref since that's when the professional record starts. But he was 21 in 1871, very few players add years before age 21 that impact their HOF case.

He's a pretty unique case. His last good year came when he was 26. I don't know if you can find any HOFer to say that about. But you also can't find any hitter who dominated any designated major league to the extent he did and not make the hall.

Barnes is the only player to have more than one 200 or better OPS+ season, be eligible, and not be in the hall. He had 3 such seasons. Next year it will be just Barnes and Bonds.

#73 Thing is that he achieved dominance over a very limited subset of even the baseball playing population. Further, the shortness of the season and the weakness of the competition makes it completely predictable that the dominant players will put up outlandish numbers.

Seriously, look at the average age of some of the teams he was competing against. I see 3 teams in 1871/72 where the average age of known position players is under 20. If you're facing lots of teenagers on a regular basis (and they aren't superb players) you aren't playing major league baseball.

In 1875 the bottom 6 (yes, 6) teams combined played .127 ball. That's not even A ball strength competition.

EDIT: I know I have precisely zero chance of convincing the HOMers of this. It's the reason I don't hang out in the HOM much despite being interested in this topic.

EDIT2: AROM, (as I'm sure you're aware), not all 200 OPS+ seasons are created equal. His numbers are as impressive in context as ... ARod or Tom Brunansky or Andruw Jones (or many others) during their minor league days. Actually Gary Redus' full year at Billings is a nice example of what a guy can put up against weak opposition.

Booey, if you agree that "The line between "professional" and "amateur" was not so sharply drawn.", then you should agree that Ross Barnes playing in "non-major leagues" is not that different from him playing in major leagues, and we should include all available stats for those leagues.

Are there available stats from those leagues? Where? I'm not being snarky; if they exist I'd really be interested in seeing them. If they don't, then no, I don't think they should be counted based on just assumptions of what he might have produced in those years.

And we do give modern players credit for playing in Japan or Central America, don't we? Or at least the HoM does.

Barnes already is in the HoM, and I'm fine with that. But I don't think the MLB Hall of Fame should give any credit for non MLB play.

EDIT2: AROM, (as I'm sure you're aware), not all 200 OPS+ seasons are created equal. His numbers are as impressive in context as ... ARod or Tom Brunansky or Andruw Jones (or many others) during their minor league days. Actually Gary Redus' full year at Billings is a nice example of what a guy can put up against weak opposition.

He certainly could not have posted a 200 OPS playing today. I am not even certain he would be good enough to play at all today. I understand the league he played in was not very strong compared to what would come later. But it is my understanding that at the time, there were no leagues higher than the National Association. And of all the players who played in it, Barnes was far and away the best hitter. His OPS+ for the NA was 186, that's 20 points better than anyone else who had 750 or more PA in that league.

If not Barnes, then who? I don't like the idea of saying that nobody from the earliest recorded leagues deserves to go in the hall, just because better leagues and players would follow them. From a peak value perspective, Barnes should absolutely be in. From a career perspective, then I think its valid to want a player to be effective after the age of 26.

And then once you finally figure out which one is which, you have to remember which one people mean when they say "Dewey".

Son of a...

If not Barnes, then who? I don't like the idea of saying that nobody from the earliest recorded leagues deserves to go in the hall, just because better leagues and players would follow them.

Al Spalding?

#79 As mentioned, he's in as an executive/pioneer. And he was done by 25 (though he could have continued as a position player if he hadn't had other ventures which demanded his time)

Which is a fair call I'd think -- as in I don't see his career of HOF quality.

AROM I think you can argue that George Wright is the intended representative of the players of that period. Yeah, he's also in as an executive/pioneer but in this case the pioneering aspect was pretty much the combination of his play and leadership. And he serves as a nice link from the Red Stockings to the NA to the NL. I think the pioneer tag is a recognition that they couldn't make a simple statistical case for him. (It does note that he hit .633 and hit 49 home runs in 57 games for the Red Stockings. But that's not so much evidence of how good he was as the fact that he was playing something barely recognizable as baseball against random -- but generally weak -- opposition)

Precisely how well he played in the NA wasn't known at the time of his election (reliable NA stats are comparatively recent). His HOF plaque notes the time in the NA as well as the Red Stockings but only contains his NL stats (which won't blow anybody away regardless of content). The NA wasn't considered a major league.

Cap Anson's also in, but his play in the NA has zip to do with his case so he'd be a lousy choice as the rep for the NA. Not that he was bad during his NA days.

Rusty Staub has a better case for the Hall of Fame than Dave Parker, and it's not all that close.

And this really emphasizes to me WHY I'm so skeptical of Bill James' talking up Parker as being a viable player to consider for the Hall of Fame.

Try Staub in your blender. I'll bet he beats Parker. When's the last time you heard someone make the case for Rusty in the Hall.

37. Voros McCracken, Human Shield Posted: February 10, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4058259)
Well Parker's case is clearly a "peak" case in that Parker over a stretch of several years was clearly in the argument for the best player in his league in a way that Evans never really was.

I don't think Parker's an HOFer either because the peak is all he's got and it ain't a legendary peak anyway.

It's not. Staub has the same consecutive 5 year peak; both have an OPS+ of 147. Staub played longer, had a better career OPS+, was a worse fielder, but not terrible despite being slow, and more than made up for it at the plate.

#79 As mentioned, he's in as an executive/pioneer. And he was done by 25 (though he could have continued as a position player if he hadn't had other ventures which demanded his time)

Which is a fair call I'd think -- as in I don't see his career of HOF quality.

I know. It was meant as a joke, as you noted, he was done at an even earlier age. However, on the one hand you've got a pitcher going 54-5 with a 134 ERA+ and a 136 OPS+ vs a batter bunting for a .430 batting average. Both are little league numbers.

To make so many adjustments to justify electing someone so long since forgotten just seems kinda pointless, IMHO

That doesn't seem like a very nice attitude.

I think this thread may have set the primer record for most years hijacked
Ross Barnes 1871 Dewey 1991

let's see someone beat THAT

Dwight Evans is on my borderline; I could take him or leave him for the Hall of Fame. But Red Sox fans already pushed through their other, less worthy corner outfielder from the same era, so that really robs me of any sympathy I would have had for Evans' case.

The NA wasn't considered a major league.

The NA was the only professional league. There were no "minor" leagues at the time. Thus, the NA was at the pinnacle of the sport, attracting most of the day's best players.

Since there seems to be a general lack of knowledge here about Barnes, I offer more info:

From 1868 to 1870, Ross starred at shortstop for the Rockford Forest Citys, along with Albert Spalding, attaining professional status in the second year.

A player can only play in the time he was born into. Barnes was a star of the first rank for eight years (1869-76). When Harry Wright was assembling his Boston dynasty, he used the core of his great Cincinnati teams and added the best players he could find, Barnes and Spalding. He played 2B only because the team already had the game's best shortstop.

Barnes was injured which led to an off year in 1877. In 1878 he played in the IA; my understanding is he was probably still recovering. He also may have simply gotten the best offer to play for Tecumseh that year (he was named team captain, who was the field manager in those days and usually was paid extra for this). In any case, in 1879 Barnes returned to the NL and starred, the game's second best shortstop after Wright.

Barnes sat out 1880; I'm not sure whether this was related to an injury or the reserve clause controversy.

In 1881, Barnes returned to the NL at age 31. In that day this was a ripe old age for a pro player; only three regulars were older than 31 that year (Start 38, Ferguson 36 and White 33). Despite this, he was still one of the league's top shortstops.

Barnes should be viewed in the same light as players like Koufax, Walsh and Hamilton in that they maximized the unique conditions of the game to dominate in their time. We can endlessly conjecture about their performances in other times, absent the advantages they enjoyed in their era, but this should not detract from the great value contributed to their teams' efforts to win.

Although somewhat romanticized, Barnes' obituary reflects something of how he was viewed at the time of his passing in 1915:

Rockford Morning Star
Saturday, 6 February 1915
p. 10

ROSS BARNES IS
CALLED OUT BY
ALMIGHTY UMPIRE

Greatest Second Baseman
Known to Baseball Passes
Away in Chicago.

BURIAL TO BE IN ROCKFORD

Rockford relatives and friends were saddened last night by receipt of advices to the effect that Roscoe C. Barnes had passed away at Chicago after an illness of only three or four days from aneurism of the aorta.

"Ross" Barnes, as he was generally known, was born in Mt. Morris, N. Y., sixty-four years ago and came to Rockford with his familly in 1866. The then new game of baseball appealed to him and by devoting to it the same keen brains which his brothers displayed in mechanics he advanced so rapidly in this profession that by 1870 he had become a national diamond celebrity and started on a career where he attained such fame and standing that Henry Chadwick, the veteran journalist who was called the "Father of Baseball" up to the time of his death, a few years ago, maintained that he was the greatest second baseman known to the game, past or present, than which no higher praise could be bestowed.

Was Star at Boston.

Barnes played at shortstop with the famous Forest Citys of Rockford in 1868-69-70 and then accompanied A. G. Spalding and Fred Cone to Boston in the National association which was the forerunner of the National league, where he was under the management of Harry Wright and where for several years he covered second base in a manner which has never been eclipsed.

Later he was a member of the Tecumsh club of Gualph, Canada, for one brilliant season and with the Chicago National league club for several years, persistent ill health finally forcing his retirement in the late seventies.

Beau Ideal of Ballmen.

Barnes had remarkable skill in guaging ground and fly balls and many of the present batting rules were devised to cut off his "fair fouls" and other strategy at the plate, for he was one of the most scientific and consistentbatsmen in the history of the sport and stood high in both batting and fielding averages at all times.

He was the personification of grace and effectiveness on the field and in his prime was the beau ideal of the intelligent diamond athlete, on and off the field, a gentleman and man of honor deserving of the wide esteem in which he was held.

In the January 10, 1918 issue of The Sporting News, Cap Anson picks his all-time team. Anson selects catchers Buck Ewing and King Kelly; pitchers Amos Rusie, John Clarkson, Jim McCormick; at 1B, himself; 2B Fred Pfeffer; 3B Ned Williamson; SS Ross Barnes; and outfielders Bill Lange, George Gore, Jimmy Ryan, and Hugh Duffy.

Some pre-1871 data can be found at Barnes' Hall of Merit thread.

There is, of course, a bio of Barnes at Wikipedia.

t's not. Staub has the same consecutive 5 year peak; both have an OPS+ of 147.

But Parker could run the bases and field meaning it wasn't at all the same peak. Furthermore, the league Parker played in was stronger as evidenced by the fact that although they both had a 166 OPS+ in their best year, Parker led the league with his and Staub was tied for 4th in an expansion year.

At peak, Parker was a substantially better player than Staub.

Barnes is a Hall of Famer, if one cares about the history of the game.

To make so many adjustments to justify electing someone so long since forgotten just seems kinda pointless, IMHO

That doesn't seem like a very nice attitude.


I didn't intend for it to sound mean. I just think it would be a better use of time and energy for people to campaign for more modern snubs, players who's fans are actually alive to remember them. Guys like Whittaker or Simmons or Grich. Who would attend a Ross Barnes HOF induction ceremony?

But I suppose there's enough people to take up both causes if they really care about it that much.

In response to comment #81 by Something Other:
I agree that Rusty Staub has a better argument than Dave Parker for the Hall (at least from a career perspective).
Anyway, I've continued messing around with Outfielders and have added in a bunch of Left Fielders to what was my Right Fielder list. The numbers have changed drastically because of the way I create the numbers, which is as a percent of the highest number in each stat... and since now Barry Bonds is included... everyone else's numbers drop drastically. Anyway, here's my current list (again, the list is my attempt to rate the top corner outfielders who I remember playing (and I started following baseball in 1980):

Bonds, Barry 100.00
Henderson, Rickey 67.16
Yastrzemski, Carl 52.73
Rose, Pete 50.92
Jackson, Reggie 47.73
Sheffield, Gary 44.36
Ramirez, Manny 43.98
Raines, Tim 43.05
Gwynn, Tony 41.50
Stargell, Willie 40.05
Winfield, Dave 38.97
Walker, Larry 38.66
Smith, Reggie 37.98
Evans, Dwight 37.98
Abreu, Bobby 35.52
Bonds, Bobby 34.79
Guerrero, Vladimir 34.76
Sosa, Sammy 34.72
Dawson, Andre 33.22
Clark, Jack 32.45
Cruz, Jose 32.30
Giles, Brian 31.19
Staub, Rusty 31.18
Gonzalez, Luis 30.92
Downing, Brian 29.40
Singleton, Ken 29.19
Suzuki, Ichiro 28.46
Foster, George 27.30
Alou, Moises 27.04
Rice, Jim 26.71
Strawberry, Darryl 26.59
Canseco, Jose 26.55
Belle, Albert 26.54
Parker, Dave 25.47
Baines, Harold 25.40
O'Neill, Paul 25.22
Salmon, Tim 24.51
Justice, David 24.49
Guerrero, Pedro 23.80
Murcer, Bobby 23.42
Gibson, Kirk 23.12
Baker, Dusty 22.45
Ordonez, Magglio 22.06
Gonzalez, Juan 22.01
Griffey, Ken Sr. 21.95
Green, Shawn 21.80
Baylor, Don 20.73
Luzinski, Greg 20.59
Mathews, Gary 20.22

For me, I'm a definite on everyone down to and including Dwight Evans and Reggie Smith.
After that it gets iffy to me down to maybe Dawson and then I become officially a skeptic...
But then again this isn't really an official ranking and peak hasn't been factored in at all, etc. etc.

In response to Booey #89:
I agree that it is important to focus on former players who are living since they are alive to enjoy being inducted, and
certainly for the fans who remember them. Nonetheless, I think the Hall Of Fame does a disservice to itself and the
history of the game if it doesn't seriously consider past omissions going back to the EARLY days. Players such as Ross Barnes...

Thus, the NA was at the pinnacle of the sport,

True.

attracting most of the day's best players.

Nonsense.

EDIT: There was no structure in place for this to happen. The NL had only a tiny fraction of the best players actually playing baseball at the time.

Nonetheless, I think the Hall Of Fame does a disservice to itself and the history of the game if it doesn't seriously consider past omissions going back to the EARLY days. Players such as Ross Barnes...

While I certainly have a hard time taking 19th century statistics at face value, my indifference towards campaigning to elect old timers isn't limited to Barnes' era. I stated in the Ron Santo thread that now that he'd been elected, the VC should be disbanded - or at least not be able to consider anyone from the 1960's and earlier anymore. The HOF ship has sailed for that time period and the remaining players have been picked over and rejected for decades. At this point the VC could only do more harm than good by continuing to get together and vote on players from the 1870's-1960's, since it seems much more likely that they'll select someone slightly below the borderline (Jim Kaat) or even someone clearly undeserving (Gil Hodges) before they'd pick someone like Minnie Minoso who actually has a decent case.

I think the VC (or whatever they choose to call it) should be reconstructed to revisit the cases of players from the 1970's and 1980's who were never given the serious look that they deserved (Simmons, Grich, Whitaker, both D.Evans, maybe Nettles). The old timers had their chance. These guys never really did.

I think the VC (or whatever they choose to call it) should be reconstructed to revisit the cases of players from the 1970's and 1980's who were never given the serious look that they deserved (Simmons, Grich, Whitaker, both D.Evans, maybe Nettles). The old timers had their chance. These guys never really did.

Don't worry a future VC (whatever it may be called), will eventually pick over the 70s and 80s and induct a batch of deserving guys- and a batch of undeserving guys...
strange stuff will happen, like Grich gets in AND Garvey, Ted Simmons and Don Mattingly

strange stuff will happen, like Grich gets in AND Garvey, Ted Simmons and Don Mattingly

What would be so bad about Ted Simmons getting in? 50 WAR for a catcher is pretty damn good and, up to the point where he stopped catching, he had just over 8000 PA at a 124 OPS+.

At the Evans level, the number of players is fairly large

Yeah, but not as large as the actual Hall of Fame. I have a "Dewey" sized Hall of Fame at about 200 players which isn't unreasonable.

I also have Evans even with Winfield because he makes up 13 wins on defense.

And I couldn't resist adding in centerfielders to my crazy lists I've been working on. Since I already combined LF and RF (in post 90) I figured I would use the same baseline with the CFs. Anyway, here's their numbers:


Griffey, Ken Jr. 45.40
Edmonds, Jim 38.70
Beltran, Carlos 34.05
Lofton, Kenny 32.85
Jones, Andruw 32.76
Cedeno, Cesar 30.78
Williams, Bernie 30.37
Lemon, Chet 30.32
Lynn, Fred 29.21
Butler, Brett 28.95
Damon, Johnny 27.85
Otis, Amos 27.22
Puckett, Kirby 27.21
Cameron, Mike 26.40
Murphy, Dale 26.01
Oliver, Al 25.85
Van Slyke, Andy 24.87
Finley, Steve 24.51
Dykstra, Lenny 24.17
Lankford, Ray 23.46
Davis, Eric 23.05
Monday, Rick 22.64

Don't worry a future VC (whatever it may be called), will eventually pick over the 70s and 80s and induct a batch of deserving guys- and a batch of undeserving guys...
strange stuff will happen, like Grich gets in AND Garvey, Ted Simmons and Don Mattingly

What would be so bad about Ted Simmons getting in?


Nothing. I think JP was implying that bad candidates like Garvey and Mattingly would be getting in alongside good ones like Grich and Simmons.

And unfortunately, at least with these 4 examples, I think the bad candidates would have a better chance of getting elected.

AROM (and Dan too I guess), having thought it through I think the HOF has got the early part of the game conceptually correct but may (well, no may. It has)

Anson's the first to get in on the strength of his playing career (and has very strong pioneer credit). That feels right to me -- particularly in light of his extra bonuses.

Anybody before is an executive/pioneer. Spalding and the Wrights make sense to me in that light.

Thing is that these guys (plus Anson and of course Hulbert and Chadwick) are kind of like the top end of the CF list in terms of Pioneers Above Replacement. A guy can be a viable HOF candidate and not compare terribly well to Mays (or Tris Speaker) and it occurs to me that this is pretty much what my position boils down to.

For me the questions are:

A) How many pioneers should there be
B) Do those with exclusively executive credit count against that total
C) Do past mistakes count against the total

Basically the way I see it is that the numbers are about right, executive credit counts against the total, but past mistakes don't. To be clear I'm not advocating kicking Morgan Bulkeley (or if you prefer, Candy Cummings) out, just saying that his election implies (to me at any rate) room for one more. And Ross Barnes (regardless of how good he really was) probably tops the PAR list. Maybe behind Creighton (and yes, I know exactly how short his career was. But Creighton was just a huge factor in the growth of the game)

So I guess tepid support from me for Barnes as a pioneer. YMMV on all of these points.

I think the HOF has got the early part of the game conceptually correct

Setting aside the idea for now that the HOF actually had the right approach in some area, can you make it clearer what you mean by "pioneer"? I think this HOF classification should only apply to people who made important contributions to the game's advancement, whether in the 19th century or later, who did not also have great achievement as a player, manager or executive that would merit election to the Hall in one of those classes. The HOF has rarely applied this definition to those it labels "executives/pioneers" (and how does it make sense to lump these two together?).

OK, I can agree that calling pre-professional star players (e.g., Creighton or Pearce) "pioneers" makes sense. But players like Barnes and Joe Start have significant statistical profiles. To me, these are simply great Players and should be enshrined as such, even though they are also pioneers who were stars before the first professional team existed, and contributed to the game's advancement by their example.

I think what Ron means is that the statistics of the best players were inflated because the level of competition was so weak. So many of the players he competed with were barely professional quality. This is a great place to look at the standard deviation of talent. Of course there's nothing Barnes could have done about that, there were no stronger leagues yet in existence. So I think it's a reasonable compromise to view him as worthy on a pioneer level, being an early star and the best player (or at least one of the best) in the first pro league.