[onnel]

Any ideas? I've been getting in to historical replays, and wonder why George Van Haltren didn't make the HOF. Most of the players like him did and it seems like his stats were probably deserving (if not a 100% cinch). Any history to this?

Onnel

[kq76]

Well I don't know about him specifically, but I think it's the general perception that too many non-great early years players made it into the hall. And if you look at his ink tests it shows that he probably wasn't in the top group of players during his time.

Ink Test links near bottom of:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/v/vanhage01.shtml

[onnel]

Ah interesting stat...gotta love baseball-reference.com! He is within the range of the HOF Standards and Monitor, but he didn't lead the league often.

I agree that a lot of early players seem to have made it that weren't dominant. What had peaked my interest about Van Haltren specifically is that if you look at the list of similar batters, 8 out of 10 are HOFers.

Onnel

[CBL-Commish]

Several problems with Van Haltren's HOF candidacy:

1) He put up his best years in the biggest offensive era of all time. His stats look superficially good, but lots of people hit .350 in the mid-1890s. Heck, whole teams occasionally hit .340+. If he was really good, that would show up in the gray and black-ink tests, as you guys previously mentioned.

2) He played in the 1890s, 100+ years ago. He wasn't an automatic HOFer, and he didn't supposedly do someting noteworthy (like invent the hit-and-run, as Tommy McCarthy is sometimes erroneously credited) so he got skipped when most of those guys were put in in early days of the Hall. After that it took some lobbying and luck for a player from 100 years ago to make it. Yes, there are HOFers worse than Van Haltren, but everyone knows the Hall has made many errors in the past.

With the new voting setup it's almost impossible from someone of his era to make it. Ask any current voter who George VanHaltren was and you'll probably get an answer like "wasn't he in that band, you know, like back in '74?"

3) He's probably not the most qualified player who's eligible but not in the Hall. I'd argue that Harry Stovey, Paul Hines, Bob Caruthers, Lip Pike, Deacon White, maybe a few others have as a good an argument as Van Haltren, just from his era.

[onnel]

CBL-Commish,

From the little I've seen of some of the players you mentioned, I'd say you're right...there are others even more deserving who didn't make it. I really don't know anything about the process in which early HOFers were inductde so your info was interesting.

Any books on the subject (or turn of the century baseball in general) that anyone can recommend?

Onnel

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Bill James - "The Politics of Glory"

He talks about why all the statistically best players not in the HOF come from the late 19th century. To paraphrase:

1) As others mentioned, it was the biggest hitting era of all time. Some of those stats aren't as impressive as they seem.

2) In the late 1940s the Veterans Committee blew it and inducted a huge number of guys who weren't nearly as good as such players as Bill Dahlen, George Davis and Van Haltren. After that, no one really wanted to induct more 1890s guys, so most of those excluded have remained so.

3) Baseball exploded in popularity right around the turn of the century, so guys like Sam Crawford and Christy Mathewson are remembered, and guys like George Van Haltren and Kid Nichols are forgotten.

4) There'd be no point in honoring these guys now - no one remembers them, and there aren't even any descendants around who knew them - it would just be giving a plaque to a line of statistics.

The book itself is well worth the read.

[onnel]

Perfect recommendation..Amazon here I come!

Onnel

[blubbla]

I just picked up that book yesterday ... while a little dated by now (it was originally published in 1994), it is still a very interesting read.

I found it interesting how the veterans committee, the BBWAA, and the HOF rules committee (in the early days the members of the vets committee) continually shgot themselves in the foot, and so now we have a tangled mess of HOF qualifications because of it.

[CBL-Commish]

"tangled mess of HOF qualifications" doesn't even begin to describe it. The problem is that there have never really been any set qualifications. Not that I'm in favor of saying, say, 500 HRs automatically gets you in, but the definition of a Hall Of Famer has always been "Whatever the current powers-that-be say a HOFer is. Note: this will probably change tomorrow."

Add into that the fact that the original Baseball Encyclopedia wasn't published until 1969, so for the first 30 years of the Hall there was no comprehensive source for player stats. One rumor has it that the only reason Lloyd Waner was ever inducted is that the Vet's Committee got his brother's stats by mistake. A lot of players like McCarthy, or Bobby Wallace or Tinker/Evers/Chance were inducted without anyone really knowing how good or bad they were.

The result is that there are probably 1500 players who are every bit as good as the worst HOFer, but only a few hundred who've actually been inducted.

[Jason Moyer]

Originally posted by Eckstein 4 Prez
3) Baseball exploded in popularity right around the turn of the century, so guys like Sam Crawford and Christy Mathewson are remembered, and guys like George Van Haltren and Kid Nichols are forgotten.

Kid Nichols was awesome. It's a shame he didn't have Cy Young's longevity, because the first 10 years that they were contemporaries he was generally a better pitcher.

Jason

[CBL-Commish]

Originally posted by Jason Moyer
Kid Nichols was awesome. It's a shame he didn't have Cy Young's longevity, because the first 10 years that they were contemporaries he was generally a better pitcher.

Jason

Besides maybe Warren Spahn and Roger Clemens, I think every pitcher wishes he had Cy Young's longevity. He was never quite the very best pitcher in the league, but virtually every year for 20 years or so he just went out and gave you a top-5 or top-10 performance in innings, wins, starts, complete games, and ERA.

Nichols was more like Jim Palmer. He gave you a ten-year run where he was incredible, but as you said, he didn't have the durability of Young or Spahn.

[Batter UP]

There is already too many players from that era who barely belong. No sense making it worse.

[woody5254]

Eck: Kid Nichols and George Davis ultimately ended up in the Hall of Fame anyway didn't they?

[darkhorse]

Originally posted by woody5254
Eck: Kid Nichols and George Davis ultimately ended up in the Hall of Fame anyway didn't they?

Yes.

Nichols is the definition of a HOF, a dominating great player. I'd have voted for Davis as well.

[darkhorse]

Van Haltren is a more than worthy candidate. Bill Dahlen is obscenely overqualified. His omission is a tragic error. Even moreso than Blyleven or Santo.