Ten Finalists Named for Pre-Integration Era Ballot For HOF

[M2]

Originally Posted by CySeymour

Dahlen has intrigued me for some time. I have never been able to figure out why he has been mostly forgotten and not in the HOF. Easily a better choice the such players like Maranville.

And still not in. I'm baffled too.

[westofyou]

Henry “Hank” O’Day was one of those rare men who played, umpired and managed in MLB.

Started his career in the 1880′s in the American Association; his catcher was Fleetwood Walker, the first black man to play professional baseball. Not a good pitcher in an era that boasts gaudy pitching numbers O’Day managed to throw 1600 innings and play in 3 different professional leagues before he hung it up with a sub .500 after the 1890 season.

O’Day joined the umpiring business in 1895 and is in that position that he gained most of his baseball fame. O’Day is most famous for being the umpire during the famous “Merkel Incident” and the second base umpire for the first triple play in World Series History.

The Cincinnati connection with O’Day is found in 1912, a year that O’Day found himself a manager in the National League and it was the Reds who gave the arbitrator his first chance at managing O’Day’s greatest accomplishment as a Red is that he was at the helm of the club when they opened the new stadium that was christened “Redland Field” and later renamed Crosley Field.

It was also the Reds who also gave him his first pink slip after the season ended. Back to umpiring went O’Day only to reemerge in 1914 managing the Cubs to their first sub .500 record in 12 seasons. In 1915 he was once again wearing blue and defending his calls to the players he managed the year before.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by M2

And still not in. I'm baffled too.

I'm looking at his stats and it might be because he wasn't a dominant player in his era. His ERA+ is 110. That's good but I don't know if it's HOF worthy. To me, it's like Ken Boyer. Both belong in the Hall of Very Good. I'm just not sure they belong in the Hall of Fame.

[cumberlandreds]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Henry “Hank” O’Day was one of those rare men who played, umpired and managed in MLB.

Started his career in the 1880′s in the American Association; his catcher was Fleetwood Walker, the first black man to play professional baseball. Not a good pitcher in an era that boasts gaudy pitching numbers O’Day managed to throw 1600 innings and play in 3 different professional leagues before he hung it up with a sub .500 after the 1890 season.

O’Day joined the umpiring business in 1895 and is in that position that he gained most of his baseball fame. O’Day is most famous for being the umpire during the famous “Merkel Incident” and the second base umpire for the first triple play in World Series History.

The Cincinnati connection with O’Day is found in 1912, a year that O’Day found himself a manager in the National League and it was the Reds who gave the arbitrator his first chance at managing O’Day’s greatest accomplishment as a Red is that he was at the helm of the club when they opened the new stadium that was christened “Redland Field” and later renamed Crosley Field.

It was also the Reds who also gave him his first pink slip after the season ended. Back to umpiring went O’Day only to reemerge in 1914 managing the Cubs to their first sub .500 record in 12 seasons. In 1915 he was once again wearing blue and defending his calls to the players he managed the year before.

Amazing! He went from umpire to manager back to umpire. I would say he is the only person to ever do that. I'm sure Earl Weaver's head would explode thinking about this.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by cumberlandreds

Amazing! He went from umpire to manager back to umpire. I would say he is the only person to ever do that. I'm sure Earl Weaver's head would explode thinking about this.

What the &*^% are you talking! (god I love Earl Weaver)

[RedsBaron]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

I don't know if it's HOF worthy. To me, it's like Ken Boyer. Both belong in the Hall of Very Good. I'm just not sure they belong in the Hall of Fame.

Ken Boyer belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I have no problem with the three people who were inducted. With regard to Deacon White, arguably being the best ever catcher in the 19th century probably merits HOF induction.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Ken Boyer belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I have no problem with the three people who were inducted. With regard to Deacon White, arguably being the best ever catcher in the 19th century probably merits HOF induction.

This book is fantastic and it's all targeted at 19th century receivers



http://www.amazon.com/Catcher-Behind.../dp/1566638704

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

Ken Boyer belongs in the Hall of Fame.
I have no problem with the three people who were inducted. With regard to Deacon White, arguably being the best ever catcher in the 19th century probably merits HOF induction.

I think he's borderline and that's coming from a guy that appreciates what Ken Boyer in his era. I think the one thing that needs to be more stressed with him is how great he was at defense. He won 9 gold gloves, 8 of which he won in consecutive years. What really hurts him, in my eyes anyway, is how he fell off the cliff later on in his career. After age 33, he was below league average. For 9 years though he was about as consistent of a player as you would find in that era.

[MikeThierry]

I didn't realize how dominant Deacon White was in his era. His OPS+ of 127 is brilliant for a catcher. He should be in the HOF. By no means am I saying Deacon White was better than Bench because he wasn't but Bench had a career OPS+ of 126.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by MikeThierry

I didn't realize how dominant Deacon White was in his era. His OPS+ of 127 is brilliant for a catcher. He should be in the HOF. By no means am I saying Deacon White was better than Bench because he wasn't but Bench had a career OPS+ of 126.

OPS plus might not be the best way to gauge players from that era IMO, the mound was constantly undergoing changes, there was no foul strike rule, in 88 walks counted as hits... just too much noise in there to lean solely on that stat

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by westofyou

OPS plus might not be the best way to gauge players from that era IMO, the mound was constantly undergoing changes, there was no foul strike rule, in 88 walks counted as hits... just too much noise in there to lean solely on that stat

It's not perfect but I think it's the best way to compare what a player did in their era compared to the rest of the competition. That isn't to say that an ERA+ of 127 is the same in 1910 as it was in 1975 or 2007. Just like WAR, to me it's an attempt to explain performance. It isn't the end all though.

Deacon White's OPS+ of 127 at least tells us he was a dominant player compared to the rest of the players in his area. It's especially great for a catcher.