Ross Barnes HOF?

[RedSoxVT92]

Is Ross Barnes (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=barnero01) HOF worthy. Yes, he did only play 9 seasons but was probably the most dominant player in the early years of baseball. From 1871-75 he scored 462 runs in only 266 games. That ratio is staggering. But also a thing against him is the rule change that killed his career. So he may not be in as a player but at least as a pioneer. He helped form the National Association and the National leauge. He was the top player for those begining years of major league baseball. So do you think he deserves to get in the HOF or is there a reason he isnt in the HOF.

[SABR Steve]

I don't think the ten-year rule should apply in the case of Barnes (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=barnero01). He had played for Rockford for five years before the National Association and league play were founded. On the other hand, I'm not sure we can give much credit to Ross (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=barnero01) for helping form the NA, or at least no more than any other player/member. I still regard George Wright (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=wrighge01) as the finest player of the Association, but that's debatable. Nevertheless, I think his contributions to the art of fielding at second base and his extraordinary batting skills warrent his inclusion to the Hall of Fame.

[538280]

Barnes shouldn't be anywhere near the HOF. He wasn't even really a dominant hitter. What he did is he mastered the art of dropping a bunt down so that it would bounce once in fair territory then roll all the way to the backstop, and he'd get a hit nearly every time with that. That was when there was no rule that the ball needed to remain fair past first/third base. They changed the rules in 1877 to the way it is now, and Barnes never again could hit. So, his "hitting dominance" is entirely based on something that was just basically cheap trickery. If he makes the HOF, it would be a direct result of the VC not doing their homework (of course that's nothing new).

[yest]

He led the leauge in triples once ,doubles 3 times and walks twice I don't think he could have done that just by bunting the ball foul. Not to mention being a great fielder.
the main reason he stopped playing as well after the swich was he got injured then

and even if he did dominate the NA soley because of the foul rule evrey one else could have done the same thing

[Baseball Guru]

I think he was a very, very good hitter but a big problem I have, besides the 9 years is the # of games and AB's he has.. He only played in 499 games and had 2392 AB's... Both #'s IMO, are too low for HOF entry...

One of the things he has going for him is that gaudy career average, but if you look at the league he played in, while impressive, others were doing the same thing...

He hit over .400 4 times and 2 of the 4 times there were other players that hit over .400 the same years (1872 and 1871) Heck, in 1871, Barnes hit .401 and that was 3rd in the league.. Levi Meyerle hit .492 that season!

You let him in, then you should consider other players that put up similar #'s during that period like: Cal McVey, Dave Orr and Pete Browning...

[jalbright]

Look at the ten most similar to him in baseball-reference.com:

Cal McVey (898)
George Wright (856) *
Bill Keister (856)
Fresco Thompson (829)
Levi Meyerle (827)
Fred Carroll (827)
Lip Pike (821)
Johnny Hodapp (817)
Michael Young (810)
Heinie Reitz (806)

Only one HOFer in the bunch, and Wright had six or seven fine years before the National Association got going--so that comparison simply isn't a very good one. IMO, Wright's the only one who deserves the honor.

Let's look at a thumbnail sketch of Ross Barnes' career:

1) He was an everyday player (Note: pitchers with short careers still might pitch 2500 innings, especially in the 19th century, while everyday guys might get 320 games, 1700 AB in six seasons like Barnes) with a

2) short career containing a

3) moderate (6 year) period of excellence

4) against competition weaker than than in a normal 20th century major league season

5) while playing an unbalanced, abbreviated schedule.

6) Furthermore, his excellence in those years was in some part due to exploiting a rule (fair-foul hits) which his contemporaries deemed unworthy to allow to continue.

7) Coincidentally or not, when the aforementioned rule changed, his excellent performance evaporated.

8) In fairness, he had injury/illness issues after 1876.

9) The fact remains that after the rule change, he played only three seasons

10) in which he was mediocre at best.

I think it is fair to say that the sum of the argument for his greatness rests on 320 or so games, about 1700 at bats over six years in a fledgling major league with an unbalanced schedule. Give him more games and AB or even more years or a stronger, more organized league, I might be willing to listen. As it is, I feel there is too little evidence to support the argument that he is a truly great player. One has to project too much based on too little data in the face of too many questions to see him as a great player, at least in my book.

[538280]

A player who never gets any HOF support (Lip Pike) would be a much better HOF candidate for an NA player than Barnes. Pike was supposed to be the fastest player in his day, a great fielder, and he got his hits the real way, not like Barnes. He has been elected to the BTF Hall of Merit.

[Spieluhr]

I was looking at baseball-databank's entry about Ross Barnes in the fielding category and it doesn't seem he was such a great fielder. In 1881 he had 7 E's in 7 games. He had around 1 E a game in other years also.

[Buzzaldrin]

I was looking at baseball-databank's entry about Ross Barnes in the fielding category and it doesn't seem he was such a great fielder. In 1881 he had 7 E's in 7 games. He had around 1 E a game in other years also.

Barnes was actually an excellent fielder, one of the league's best, his error output throughout his career was consistent with his era, which was one of zero equipment and lousy balls and fields. After his career was derailed by injuries his fielding went the same way as his hitting (after 1876).

[KCGHOST]

Barnes didn't even remotely come close to the playing career of Pete Browning. The Gladiator played in twice as many games and had twice the PA's as Barnes and produced at a far higher level.

If one was to generate an argument for Barnes enshrinement it has to be as some kind of mega-pioneer.

[Spieluhr]

Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking something was wrong with a great fielder having an error per game.

[dgarza]

He hit over .400 4 times and 2 of the 4 times there were other players that hit over .400 the same years (1872 and 1871) Heck, in 1871, Barnes hit .401 and that was 3rd in the league.. Levi Meyerle hit .492 that season!


It's not like there were a ton of players hitting .400+. In fact, only 4 others did it in the NA: Meyerle (only once), McVey (only once), Force (only once), and Anson (only once). Barnes did so 3 times and also once in the NL. Tony Gwynn wasn't the only player batting .350+ at times, but that shouldn't discount Gwynn's batting.

[dgarza]

He wasn't even really a dominant hitter.
Not dominant? He compiled 59 Black Ink numbers (twice+ the "HOF average") within a 6 year period. Player just cannot do that without being a dominant hitter. If he was not a dominant hitter, which player was dominant then?

[baseballPAP]

He was dominant in a league where there were about 3 competitive teams. And many of his doubles were in fact due to the fair foul rule...he was good enough at it that he could nick the ball with the bottom of his bat, letting it strike in front of home plate, but still moving backward. It would then roll until the catcher got to it...many times those stadiums had no backstops, or at least not what we're used to. He was a pioneer of sorts, revolutionizing second base play, and he was truly the master of the fair/foul bunt, as well as something that was akin to a swinging bunt, where he dropped the ball over the head of the 3rd baseman who was trying to stop the F/F play.

The source for all of the above is from an old book I used to have....talked a lot about strategies pre-1900, and made King Kelly out to be a god. Also the source for my love of Billy Hamilton :)

I don't feel like the NA should even be considered as far as statistics. It really was much closer to slow-pitch softball than baseball as we know it. I have no problem with its stars being honored, but Barnes' health made his career too short IMO. I'd rather see Joe Start go in, by far.

[Buzzaldrin]

I don't feel like the NA should even be considered as far as statistics. It really was much closer to slow-pitch softball than baseball as we know it. I have no problem with its stars being honored, but Barnes' health made his career too short IMO. I'd rather see Joe Start go in, by far.

Slow pitch softball? Are you kiddin' me? Christ, it must have been HELL to hit. The pitcher was only 45 feet away, throwing underhanded at God knows what speed (and if you don't think you can't get velocity underhanded, than you've never met Carl Mays or Eddie Feigner- hell, Feigner is possibly the fastest pitcher ever). The pitcher had a 6 foot square box that he could move about freely in and was AT NO TIME REQUIRED TO FACE THE BATTER before pitching to him.

If you have a 90 MPH ball coming from down below from God knows what angle and God knows when, you are going to have a tough time hitting it. That's just the plain truth. And even if you are allowed the luxury of calling for a high or low pitch, that doesn't do you too much good when the pitcher has 8 or 9 balls to a walk and can waste as many close ones as he feels like.

The league average in the NA hovered in the .280s until 1874 before sinking, and Barnes' magic season in 1876 came at a league average of .265. It was NOT easy to hit back then.

[baseballPAP]

Slow pitch softball? Are you kiddin' me? Christ, it must have been HELL to hit. The pitcher was only 45 feet away, throwing underhanded at God knows what speed (and if you don't think you can't get velocity underhanded, than you've never met Carl Mays or Eddie Feigner- hell, Feigner is possibly the fastest pitcher ever). The pitcher had a 6 foot square box that he could move about freely in and was AT NO TIME REQUIRED TO FACE THE BATTER before pitching to him.

If you have a 90 MPH ball coming from down below from God knows what angle and God knows when, you are going to have a tough time hitting it. That's just the plain truth. And even if you are allowed the luxury of calling for a high or low pitch, that doesn't do you too much good when the pitcher has 8 or 9 balls to a walk and can waste as many close ones as he feels like.

The league average in the NA hovered in the .280s until 1874 before sinking, and Barnes' magic season in 1876 came at a league average of .265. It was NOT easy to hit back then.
There was also a rule prohibiting the pitcher from bending his elbow. Mays never had to deal with that. Also I believe a windup was against the rules. Still, perhaps fast pitch softball is a better analogy, although I was considering the fielder's perspective as well....as in very little range, open fields where a ball hit over the OFers heads would just keep rolling (or fields so large that they had the same effect). I should have clarified.

[yest]

Barnes led his leauges in putouts once, assists 4 times, double plays 3 times and F% 3 times
and remember they were playing barehanded thus the reason for the high era rate

[CapAnson]

We're talking 1870's here.. does anybody remember him? No.. has there been years of clamoring for his election? No... he was the most dangerous hitter of a league that existed only 5 years and played under rules far different today. If he were elected wouldn't we basically be electing a set of statistics to the hall?

[Brian McKenna]

We're talking 1870's here.. does anybody remember him? No.. has there been years of clamoring for his election? No... he was the most dangerous hitter of a league that existed only 5 years and played under rules far different today. If he were elected wouldn't we basically be electing a set of statistics to the hall?

obviously not a fan of history - the current events thread is several clicks down

[SABR Steve]

Ah, that makes sense. I was thinking something was wrong with a great fielder having an error per game.

He was barehanded. He also revolutionized his position.

[Honus Wagner]

Teddy Roosevelt called Barnes, "The best player I ever saw. Could have used him on the charge up San Juan Hill."

[SABR Steve]

One thing that's missing from the above replies is the fact that many players used the fair-foul hitting technique. Every good hitter used it including George Wright, Davy Force, Levi Meyerle, Lefty McMullen, and Dave Eggler. Ross Barnes was simply the best practitioner of the fair-foul hit.
On a further note, Barnes contracted the ague after 1876, which weakened him, never regaining the strength he once had.
I judge players against their peers, as it is the fairest way.

[antihipster]

No way Barnes ought to be inducted in the HOF.

While his numbers were high in the NA, these numbers really do not mean much to this weak league. Later on, his NL numbers started to decline due to either a change in rules, injuries, or maybe a combination of the two. Additionally, Barnes did not play long enough to be inducted in the hall. As for a pioneer, I think for the foul-fair bunt, that is such a minor attribue to the game in such a short time frame that the outcome is, well, short of timeless.

[TonyK]

Ross Barnes had around a .379 career BA in the NA compared to McVey's .362avg. and George Wright's .350 avg. Wright is in the HOF with his 867 ML hits while Barnes is not. Jim O'Rourke is in the HOF yet he batted over 60 points lower than Barnes did in the NA.

Barnes was the best player in the 1876 NL, and his 88 Runs Created was not toppled for a few years. His career OPS+ rating of 166 has been ignored.

I wish someone would compile the complete career stats of players from his generation so we would have a better idea how good they actually were. If Ross Barnes played an additional 500 or more games vs non-ML teams then I am curious how he did in those games. There were some ML caliber teams that he faced which would later on join the majors.

If the best shortstop from the NA is in the HOF then I would like to see the best second baseman in it too.

[antihipster]

The major rerason Barnes is not HOF material is that he displayed only had a handful of good seasons in the very weak National Association. Additionally, Barnes National League numbers are average at the most.

If you run his National Association relative stats against a probablity based league average, Barne's overall value dramatically plummets.

[Dodgerfan1]

If it is important to take into consideration the times a player played in, how can we then say that Barnes' batting averages were inordinately inflated because of the fair/foul ruling of the day? Doesn't that directly fall under the the context of the times in which he played? As long as everyone in that day and age had to play by the same rules, what's the difference? I see many posts where people state that so-and-so's fielding average, while low by today's standards, was consistent, or better than, the fielding averages of his time, therefore he should be considered a good fielder, despite a bad FA. What's the point of saying that having crappy (or no) gloves should be considered when assessing players' fielding averages when you aren't also going to consider the fact that different rules applied under which old-time players achieved certain hitting records?

I understand there is a difference between equipment (gloves) and rules (fair/foul hit rule), but it seems inconsistent to me to take one aspect of conditions back then into consideration, but totally dismiss other aspects. Are there not players in the HOF who played when the fair/foul ruled applied? Shouldn't their batting achievements also be considered less impressive if we are also going to lessen Barnes' achievements for the same reason?

I also don't believe Barnes should be in the HOF, I am merely trying to understand the logic of the comparisons we are making.

[TonyK]

"Are there not players in the HOF who played when the fair/foul ruled applied? Shouldn't their batting achievements also be considered less impressive if we are also going to lessen Barnes' achievements for the same reason? I also don't believe Barnes should be in the HOF, I am merely trying to understand the logic of the comparisons we are making."

Why not compare him to his double play partner George Wright? They were teammates on the great Boston team from 1871 to 1875. Barnes had a higher fielding percentage, a higher batting average, and ranged from almost in back of 1B, then to short RF, and then back of 2B depending on the batter. He led his league in fielding six times as a second baseman. Yet George Wright is in the HOF with only 867 career ML hits.

His stats with Rockford from 1866 to 1870 are also telling to me. At age 18, he scored 75 runs in only 15 games. The next two years he made 287 hits in only 79 games. Probably the only reason he was not in the Major Leagues at the time was because there weren't any!

[TonyK]

The major rerason Barnes is not HOF material is that he displayed only had a handful of good seasons in the very weak National Association. Additionally, Barnes National League numbers are average at the most.

If you run his National Association relative stats against a probablity based league average, Barne's overall value dramatically plummets.

No question that it hurt him that he only played 9 seasons due to an injury.

Would you consider his 1876 NL season "average at the most"?...

He led the NL in BA, OBP, SLG, 2B, 3B, TB, H, R, W, RC, EBH and OPS+. He had the highest TPR (Total Player Rating) in the NL indicating he probably was the NL MVP.

His BA was 63 points higher than #2. He scored 54 more runs than #2 (George Wright incidentally). He batted .429 and the NL batted .265. His team won the pennant while his former Boston team fell to 4th place. That is one of the best seasons of the 19th Century.

[The Kid]

Should'nt this thread be in HOF talk?

[jalbright]

Should'nt this thread be in HOF talk?

It could be, but it's also quite relevant in this forum, which is where it started. My feeling is to leave it where it is.

Jim Albright

[TonyK]

Does anyone have articles about his years with Boston? I noticed that George Wright and Ross Barnes each played 15 games at shortstop for the 1871 Boston club. In 1872, they moved Barnes to 2B rather than Wright who had the lower fielding percentage.

[The Kid]

Not even close. He isn't even elidgeable, he only played 9 seasons.

[SABR Steve]

Does anyone have articles about his years with Boston? I noticed that George Wright and Ross Barnes each played 15 games at shortstop for the 1871 Boston club. In 1872, they moved Barnes to 2B rather than Wright who had the lower fielding percentage.

Wright was injured during the 1871 campaign. He was recognized as not only the greatest shortstop in the game, but its greatest player. When 1872 rolled around he reclaimed his old position. Deacon White once said that he could throw with either hand and with authority.

[BillOK]

Does anyone have articles about his years with Boston? I noticed that George Wright and Ross Barnes each played 15 games at shortstop for the 1871 Boston club. In 1872, they moved Barnes to 2B rather than Wright who had the lower fielding percentage.

Wright was injured this season so Barnes,a SS in Rockford, filled in. Wright was the Babe Ruth of his day, the most popular player and considered the best too. Anyway, Barnes fielded better than Wright, the numbers say so, but with his rep, and his brother running the team, it was Wright's position to hold, Barnes just had to settle for remaking 2nd base in his image.

[TonyK]

Wright was injured this season so Barnes,a SS in Rockford, filled in. Wright was the Babe Ruth of his day, the most popular player and considered the best too. Anyway, Barnes fielded better than Wright, the numbers say so, but with his rep, and his brother running the team, it was Wright's position to hold, Barnes just had to settle for remaking 2nd base in his image.

This is similar to A-Rod joining the Yankees and having to move over to 3B since Jeter played SS.

[Freakshow]

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 2137?

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).

[PVNICK]

It was a tough call, but I think he wasn't good enough for a long enough period of time. But Freakshow's argument was in mind, namely if the HOF came to be in 1890 woudl he be in and my answer is more than likely yes.

[Bill Burgess]

Someone later started another Ross Barnes thread. And here it IS!

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=50116

[SABR Steve]

Although encyclopedias don't have his newest 1876 average, Barnes was 225 for 322 at bats for a .4352 mark. He hit .4465 (71 for 159) at home and .4233 (69 for 163) on the road. Barnes hit .552 in June and .500 in July.

[rrhersh]

Where do the changed numbers come from? I would have thought that the records of the games had been pretty thoroughly combed through by now and there wasn't anything new to find.

Out of curiosity, what is your procedure for reconciling conflicting newspaper accounts? I have some rules of thumb I use in my own research, but I am less concerned with statistics, so some slop is acceptable.

[TonyK]

Although encyclopedias don't have his newest 1876 average, Barnes was 225 for 322 at bats for a .4352 mark. He hit .4465 (71 for 159) at home and .4233 (69 for 163) on the road. Barnes hit .552 in June and .500 in July.

71 + 69 = 140

[spark240]

So, his "hitting dominance" is entirely based on something that was just basically cheap trickery.

It's not fair to judge old-time players by modern rules, or rules introduced after they were in the league. There are several spitball pitchers in the Hall.

[SABR Steve]

You're right TonyK, I read from the wrong column. Barnes was 140 for 322 for a .4348 average. My bad.

[leecemark]

--When this thread was originally started I voted "not instrumental enough". I've learned enough since then to realize he shouldn't be admitted as a pioneer - he should be admitted as a player. Barnes hitting peak was every bit as impressive as Rogers Hornsby's would be 50 years later - and he was a much better fielder than Hornsby.

[SABR Steve]

Where do the changed numbers come from? I would have thought that the records of the games had been pretty thoroughly combed through by now and there wasn't anything new to find.

Out of curiosity, what is your procedure for reconciling conflicting newspaper accounts? I have some rules of thumb I use in my own research, but I am less concerned with statistics, so some slop is acceptable.


These particular stats come from Trent McCotter, a member of the records committee of SABR. He acknowledges Bill Deane and Pete Palmer among others.

Prior to 1902, the official records, the official box scores do not exist anymore. Most researchers use home town papers which may or may not have conflicting information.

All this started because of the curiosity and desire to complete statistical data such as the RBI before 1907. That desire has grown to include many other categories including the new formulae that have been concocted in recent years. Without the original official box scores, researchers have had to use box scores from different sources which may or may not agree with the original records. Who's to know? So the changes will continue. Recently it was discovered that Lajoie had an extra at bat in 1910 which makes that year the closest yet for a batting title: .383446 for Lajoie and .383399 for Cobb. Of course Cobb is still the official champ and should be because of the shenanigans that went on during that season-ending doubleheader in St.Louis.

In any case, this thread is about Barnes.

[ItsOnlyGil]

The HOF is of no consequence.
Ross Barnes is.