What if, hypothetically...

[Cowtipper]

The Hall of Fame lowered the required service time from 10 years to nine years? Which players whose careers lasted only nine years would you put in the Hall? How about eight years? Seven?

[Gee Walker]

Addie Joss... oh, wait a minute, he is in already.

The only other guys that I could think of are early 19th-century guys. Someone like Levi Meyerle or Cal McVey.

If you go down to 7 seasons, Bill Lange had a very good career.

[Cowtipper]

I was thinking eight year players could be Larry Corcoran and Dave Orr. A nine year player could be Ross Barnes.

And I don't know about Meyerle, even for his day he was considered pretty bad defensively.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Probably very few players would benefit from this rule.

And NO, repeat NO free-agency era players. The money is just too great for a guy who was a great player who suddenly lost it due to illness, injury, or some other reason, to keep trying to come back.

[Paul Wendt]

I was thinking eight year players could be Larry Corcoran and Dave Orr. A nine year player could be Ross Barnes.

And I don't know about Meyerle, even for his day he was considered pretty bad defensively.
Unless Cooperstown changes another rule, Ross Barnes and Cal McVey have only four seasons to their credit --beginning 1876, not 1871.

If eligible Barnes might make it to the final ballot one of these years, now that a small committee does that job. That would be a big improvement.
At the same time, recognizing 1871-1875 should make Deacon White worth voting for, or worth discussing as an electable candidate --again, now that a small committee does that job.

[KCGHOST]

I really don't think it would change a thing at this point in time.

[Freakshow]

I really don't think it would change a thing at this point in time.
Right, not directly. But the rule is an unnecessary anachronism. Change needs to start somehwere. Abolishing the 10-year rule could ultimately lead to a rethinking of the entire election process, that is badly needed.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Unless Cooperstown changes another rule, Ross Barnes and Cal McVey have only four seasons to their credit --beginning 1876, not 1871.

If eligible Barnes might make it to the final ballot one of these years, now that a small committee does that job. That would be a big improvement.
At the same time, recognizing 1871-1875 should make Deacon White worth voting for, or worth discussing as an electable candidate --again, now that a small committee does that job.


I certainly hope Barnes doesn't make it. Barnes' production was due to his mastry of the "fair-foul" hit, a device that was made illegal because of his proficiency. Some credit should be given Barnes for taking advantage of the rules of the time, but I sincerely doubt Barnes would have been a star in 1900, let alone 2000.

[Freakshow]

I certainly hope Barnes doesn't make it. Barnes' production was due to his mastry of the "fair-foul" hit, a device that was made illegal because of his proficiency. Some credit should be given Barnes for taking advantage of the rules of the time, but I sincerely doubt Barnes would have been a star in 1900, let alone 2000.
That version of history has largely been debunked. The more accurate story is this:

In 1877, he fell ill with what was then only described as an "ague" (fever), played only 22 games, and did not play well when he was in the lineup. The illness robbed Barnes of much of his strength and agility, and shortened his career. While many baseball histories originally blamed the change in rules that outlawed the "fair-foul" hit, of which Barnes was an acknowledged master, his illness has become a more widely accepted explanation for his loss of productivity.

When he returned to MLB (and better health) he had an all-star season in 1879.

Contemporary observers have usually described Barnes as an intelligent, graceful, all-around ball player, not some one-trick pony. He also gets high marks for his fielding; he played shortstop when not paired with the great George Wright.

[jalbright]

I wouldn't say it's "debunked". The illness is certainly a plausible alternative, and certainly had some effect. The question is, was the small man that Barnes was taking advantage of the "fair-foul" rule to get his large share of extra base hits? If he was (and there's a contemporary report unearthed by Paul Wendt which states he's using the fair-foul rule to hit them by 3B--which is likely an extra base hit), then the fair-foul rule was still an important element of his success. If somebody goes back and determines he rarely hit XBH by means of fair-foul hits, I'll buy the illness as the main culprit. Until then, I regard it as undecided. Also, the 1879 year wasn't all that great (as opposed to merely good) IMHO, and my old version of Total Baseball agrees that it was an above average year, but not spectacular, in the +1 over average range.

[Freakshow]

I wouldn't say it's "debunked". The illness is certainly a plausible alternative, and certainly had some effect. The question is, was the small man that Barnes was taking advantage of the "fair-foul" rule to get his large share of extra base hits? If he was (and there's a contemporary report unearthed by Paul Wendt which states he's using the fair-foul rule to hit them by 3B--which is likely an extra base hit), then the fair-foul rule was still an important element of his success. If somebody goes back and determines he rarely hit XBH by means of fair-foul hits, I'll buy the illness as the main culprit. Until then, I regard it as undecided.
Every player at that time added more extra base hits because the corners had to play closer to the lines. Barnes extra advantage lies in a combination of hitting the ball a little harder and/or placing it more accurately than other players. These were good skills to have even after the fair-foul rule was dropped.

Also, the 1879 year wasn't all that great (as opposed to merely good) IMHO, and my old version of Total Baseball agrees that it was an above average year, but not spectacular, in the +1 over average range.
Barnes' team played 81 games in 1879. A player in the +2 range today is often an all-star. Barnes was the second-best SS in MLB that year. Here are each team's main SS in 1879:

OPS+ WinSh
G. Wright 121 16
R. Barnes 108 10
E. Sutton 82 8
E. Caskin 94 6
T. Carey 77 7
J. Peters 74 7
D. Force 56 5
J. Macullar 62 4

[jalbright]

That was one of Barnes' three MLB seasons after the rule change and illness. It was certainly his best. He played badly in 1878 in the International League. AFAIK, he didn't play in 1880, and had his last hurrah at age 31 in a decent but unremarkable season in the majors.

If the fair-foul rule idea is "debunked", then why even in 1879, his "star" season after the illness and rule change, was his ISO down to the .050 range when it was never under .077 in the fair-foul days, and four times between .153 and .179? If it wasn't the rule, why couldn't he exploit his skills closer to the previous version of Ross Barnes, since you allege he returned to full health? And why did he not last?

Also, doubling Barnes' 1879 performance implies that the leagues were the same quality, despite the fact the game was either in its infancy or toddler stages. Top position players posted marks then in terms of TPR which are comparable to modern position stars, which implies the proper conversion of that data is much more in the 1:1 range.

[Freakshow]

Stick to the facts, please.

--I never "alleged" that Barnes returned to "full health". If you reread the quote in #9 perhaps you'll see this, too. That, together with his advancing age, explain his decline in performance, pretty normal for the era, as far as I can see.
--You say he "played badly" in 1878. You can't know this until you know the level of offense in that league and park, which we don't. For example, you would assume Mantle "played badly" in 1968 when he hit .237 with 54 RBI. He didn't, as indicated by his OPS+ of 142.
--You ask, "why did he not last?" Actually, Barnes was 31 in his final season, a fairly advanced age for a regular player in that era. Despite this, he still ranked in the top half among the league's shortstops. It was a pretty normal age for a star player to be done at in the 1870's and early 1880's. Of course, there are a few notable exceptions to this.
--TPR is calibrated so the average player is rated 0.0. If you're one win above average in an 81-game season, that's the same as two wins above average in a 162-game season. And remember that MLB had only eight teams in 1879, so the talent was concentrated; it was not a weak league compared to most seasons in that era..

[jalbright]

I have stuck to the facts--just ones you don't happen to like. We've both interpreted, including on TPR. You've got to also adjust for league quality, and since the top of the league is about as good in 81 games as later season's best are in 162, and there's a very sound statistical principle which holds that the best are comparable to the best, a 1:1 ratio is a lot closer to the mark than 2:1. Again, this is based in fact.

And as for 1878, if you think a .235 average with .282 slugging isn't poor..... (Source, SABR's Nineteenth Century Stars). Yeah, lots of guys petered out at 31 back then--and a lot of guys don't deserve the HOF, either. Many of the best of those days did last a lot better than Barnes--why not Barnes? These are all factually based.

Moreover, why isn't it logical to wonder if such a slightly built man (145 pounds in baseball reference) wasn't getting such high isolated power numbers by exploiting the fair-foul rule, especially since he never approached that level of isolated power after the rule change? This is factually based.

[Freakshow]

The fundamental mistake you're making is to interpret Barnes based on modern standards:

--You assume those 1878 numbers are poor, based on what you're familiar with. For all you know, the numbers you quoted were just fine for a middle infielder in that league.
--You think of 31 as not so old because that's how it is now; in fact, the vast majority of MLB players in that era were done as regulars by that age.
--You think of Barnes as being "slightly built" - compared to whom? To modern players. His size wasn't unusual in that time. Anyway, this isn't football.

You seem to think that Barnes was some billiards player that perfected a trick shot, that it took no athletic ability or skill to compile the numbers he did. The evidence I see suggests Barnes was a great all-around player. I see no reason to believe that he would not have excelled even if the fair-foul hit had been abolished a decade sooner.

As someone who advocates for the highly speculative cases of Negro leaguers and Japanese league players, I'm surprised that you would be unable to interpret Barnes in a similar light.

[Cowtipper]

Noodles Hahn might also make a good eight year candidate.

Just throwing that out there.

[jalbright]

The fundamental mistake you're making is to interpret Barnes based on modern standards:

--You assume those 1878 numbers are poor, based on what you're familiar with. For all you know, the numbers you quoted were just fine for a middle infielder in that league.
--You think of 31 as not so old because that's how it is now; in fact, the vast majority of MLB players in that era were done as regulars by that age.
--You think of Barnes as being "slightly built" - compared to whom? To modern players. His size wasn't unusual in that time. Anyway, this isn't football.

You seem to think that Barnes was some billiards player that perfected a trick shot, that it took no athletic ability or skill to compile the numbers he did. The evidence I see suggests Barnes was a great all-around player. I see no reason to believe that he would not have excelled even if the fair-foul hit had been abolished a decade sooner.

As someone who advocates for the highly speculative cases of Negro leaguers and Japanese league players, I'm surprised that you would be unable to interpret Barnes in a similar light.

He didn't last--not like the position players from the 19th century I most like: Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Start, Childs, Hines, Gore, Sutton, Deacon White and George Wright all lasted until at least 35. So did McPhee and Glasscock, for that matter. Great position players, particularly from circumstances as out of the usual as the Negro Leagues, Japan, or the 1870's ought to last better than Barnes did. Maybe it was his health--but when he had a good year after the rule change, even then, the power was gone. Other players adapted, why not him? If he got a lot of his XBH off the rule and didn't adapt, could it have been because he just always swung early and it led to good results because of the rule? If he didn't get a lot of his XBH off the rule, I can support Barnes--but I want that question answered first, so I'm confident I'm supporting a talent rather than a guy who couldn't adapt to meet a rule change. If it's simply a matter that he couldn't adapt--well, that's darned good evidence he wasn't great.

[Freakshow]

He didn't last--not like the position players from the 19th century I most like: Anson, Brouthers, Connor, Start, Childs, Hines, Gore, Sutton, Deacon White and George Wright all lasted until at least 35. So did McPhee and Glasscock, for that matter. Great position players, particularly from circumstances as out of the usual as the Negro Leagues, Japan, or the 1870's ought to last better than Barnes did. Maybe it was his health--but when he had a good year after the rule change, even then, the power was gone. Other players adapted, why not him? If he got a lot of his XBH off the rule and didn't adapt, could it have been because he just always swung early and it led to good results because of the rule? If he didn't get a lot of his XBH off the rule, I can support Barnes--but I want that question answered first, so I'm confident I'm supporting a talent rather than a guy who couldn't adapt to meet a rule change. If it's simply a matter that he couldn't adapt--well, that's darned good evidence he wasn't great.
A contradiction here:

on the one hand "he had a good year after the rule change"
on the other hand he "didn't adapt".

To me, the fact he had a good year, despite his illness, proves he adapted.

And it's inapt to group Barnes with every 19th century player. The game was quickly evolving; training and equipment was improving and economic incentive for staying in the game was getting stronger. Players who were only seven years younger than Barnes enjoyed these advantages to achieve greater longevity than players in Barnes' generation. Of your list of 12 players, only half were really from Barnes' generation of players, or earlier.

It seems to me that you would rate him more highly if he had never even tried to come back after 1877. Could Koufax have succeeded with the smaller strike zone and lower mound after 1968? He wasn't great before he had these advantages and he didn't try to come back after. Nobody docks him for that. Neither should you dock Barnes.

Nobody is saying Barnes' performance after the rule change was as good as before. He was getting old for a 1870's-early 80's player. And his illness permanently diminished his play.

Sure, some of his XBH was probably due to the rule. If he had a unique talent to take advantage of his circumstances, that should be a plus, not a demerit. It added extraordinary value to his teams.

For you to insist on positive proof of a point unrelated to the great value he actually contributed, and use it as justification for denying him support for the Hall seems strange.

[KCGHOST]

Right, not directly. But the rule is an unnecessary anachronism. Change needs to start somehwere. Abolishing the 10-year rule could ultimately lead to a rethinking of the entire election process, that is badly needed.

Anachronism?? Says who? Just because you don't like something doesn't make it an anachronism. The current HoF requirement that a player be retired for five years and have played ten years is most reasonable. There is not a single player who retired since 1950 who played less than ten years that merits even modest consideration for the HoF.

As for all the players who played less than ten years and are long gone from the scene there isn't a one them whose enshrinement would improve the HoF.

I would wager serious money that if ever a viable candidate popped up in the future who only played 9 years (say, something happened to Albert Pujols and he had to retire after 2009) the HoF would make an exception to get him on the ballot.

And while we get annoyed with the current process the BBWAA portion is working fairly well right now. It certainly isn't noticeably worse than the balloting done here at BBF. The VC, in its many guises, has been a disaster.

And as far as this re-thinking idea goes it is a pipe dream.. Who do you think is going to do that? That's right, the very guys who brought you the current process you are so critical about. Do not expect any late night calls from the head of the HoF foundation saying they would like you to oversee the "rethinking" process.

And for all the Ross Barnes acolytes in the world give it a rest. You are beginning to sound like the Pete Rose and Joe Jackson syncophants.

[jalbright]

No, I wouldn't rate him more highly if he hadn't tried to come back. The question would still remain. His power never adapted--and that loss moves him from great to no better than good--which he couldn't sustain, either. If he was getting exceptional advantages from a rule that has never been available to any ballplayer since 1876 and which dramatically alters the game, well, I've got problems with that. Eddie Feigner of the "King and His Court" was a hell of a softball pitcher, but he's not going in to the baseball HOF--he played a significantly different game.

If Barnes could adapt and be great (in my mind, he doesn't ever meet that standard after the rule change), then I can support him--but if he couldn't for reasons other than illness, well, I have to question whether he really qualifies as great, because to me great players can do better than that. The evidence to start answering that question is how many of his XBH were of the fair-foul variety when that rule was in effect. If there weren't many, I can buy his decline was illness based. If there were enough to match what he lost after the rule change or more, I have a tough time with his case. In between, it's tougher, but what are the numbers? I'd rather have Barnes sit on the sidelines until I've got better information. If that means forever, I can live with it. There are quite a few 19th deserving 19th century guys without such a significant question attached to them, and they precede him in line as far as I'm concerned.

[Freakshow]

Anachronism?? Says who? Just because you don't like something doesn't make it an anachronism. Correct. It's an anachronism because it's a remnant from an earlier time. While useful originally, the ubiquity of computerized data makes it easy to devise a much better formula for qualifying for the ballot.
The current HoF requirement that a player be retired for five years and have played ten years is most reasonable. There is not a single player who retired since 1950 who played less than ten years that merits even modest consideration for the HoF.Tell that to Satchel Paige and Monte Irvin. More recently, there are a few who should have been on the ballot, which is the final honor for many players, but were denied by the rule. Rusty Greer and Bryan Harvey are two that come to mind.

As for all the players who played less than ten years and are long gone from the scene there isn't a one them whose enshrinement would improve the HoF. Another thread in this forum takes up the case for several early players, whose inclusion would indeed enhance the standing of the Hall as a historical institution.

I would wager serious money that if ever a viable candidate popped up in the future who only played 9 years (say, something happened to Albert Pujols and he had to retire after 2009) the HoF would make an exception to get him on the ballot.Bingo! So the rule is unnecessary, right? They'll ignore it if they feel like it. Why not create a rule that would include players like the theoretically incapacitated Pujols?

And while we get annoyed with the current process the BBWAA portion is working fairly well right now. It certainly isn't noticeably worse than the balloting done here at BBF. Tell that to Ted Simmons and Bobby Grich and Ron Santo.

And as far as this re-thinking idea goes it is a pipe dream.. Who do you think is going to do that? That's right, the very guys who brought you the current process you are so critical about. Do not expect any late night calls from the head of the HoF foundation saying they would like you to oversee the "rethinking" process.Tilt at windmills, my son...oops, there goes another rubber tree plant.

And for all the Ross Barnes acolytes in the world give it a rest. You are beginning to sound like the Pete Rose and Joe Jackson syncophants.Please, it's "sycophants". But I think the word you were looking for is "shills".

[Brad Harris]

Tilt at windmills, my son...oops, there goes another rubber tree plant.

'Cause he's got hiiiiiiiiiigh hopes, he's got hiiiiiiiiiigh hopes
He's got high apple piiiiie-in-the-skyyyyy hopes!