Ross Barnes for HOF

[Blackout]

.359 career BA

59 black ink (16th most all time)

career 166 OPS+

hit .400 in four different seasons

much better fielding 2nd basemen than the league avergae (he was .875, the league was .838)


why doesnt the BBHOF show love for some more 19th century guys and elect them over these steroid mutants?

[Naliamegod]

Ross is ineligible.

Not to mention stats in the 1870s are really really eschewed

[Blackout]

4 .400 seasons, thats the most in history isnt it?

[Naliamegod]

Barnes also did that during a time where if a ball bounced in fair territory it was fair. Once that rule was taken away he dissappeared.

Not to mention he did this in so much fewer games and in a era where a player can call if he had a low or high pitch.

[538280]

Ross Barnes doesn't deserve to be considered a great player at all. In 1876, when the NL was formed, they made a rule saying that any bunt that bounces in fair territory, then goes foul before third base, was considered foul. Well, Barnes had mastered having a bunt bounce once in fair territory, and then goin foul, and almost hitting the backstop. Once the NL adopted that rule, Barnes never did very well, and he was out of the league in 2 years. There is no way he deserves to be considered a great player, at all, but his stats sure do look good. He is a prime example of why you always have to check on 19th century rules before you can accurately evaluate 19th century players.

[dgarza]

Barnes also did that during a time where if a ball bounced in fair territory it was fair. Once that rule was taken away he dissappeared.

Hmm... he did something better than any other player did. That used to be called talent.

[dgarza]

Ross Barnes doesn't deserve to be considered a great player at all. In 1876, when the NL was formed, they made a rule saying that any bunt that bounces in fair territory, then goes foul before third base, was considered foul. Well, Barnes had mastered having a bunt bounce once in fair territory, and then goin foul, and almost hitting the backstop. Once the NL adopted that rule, Barnes never did very well, and he was out of the league in 2 years. There is no way he deserves to be considered a great player, at all, but his stats sure do look good. He is a prime example of why you always have to check on 19th century rules before you can accurately evaluate 19th century players.

Barnes's batting and fielding fell at the same time. I never heard of a foul rule affecting a secondbaseman's fielding. Also, in 1977 he played only about 1/3 of the time he did the previous year, and he played only irregularly after that (althought I read he also played in Canada). He did take on some rather major injuries as well. The fact that the NL rules changed at the same time that Barnes's stats fell is only a coincidence.

Barnes often lead in triples, doubles, extra base hits, and walks, hardly bunting feats.

It should also be noted that Barnes dominated like no one else at the time. I wouldn't back a 2nd or 3rd best player of the times so strongly, but Barnes was neither of these, he was the #1 position player.

[pjwvolk]

but he is ineligeble, so all your arguments are for nothing. also, it is hard to measure someone's batting average if they played less than 80 games a year, i dont care what era it was in.

[leecemark]

--Several people have stated Barnes in ineligible for the Hall of Fame. That might be true for the Cooperstown Hall of Fame, although I'm not sure that some allowance couln't be made for a player whose career started before the NA. However, he is definately eligible for the BBF HoF and that is the only one where opinions offered here are likely to carry any weight. FWIW, Barnes has been elected to the Timeline HoF and I expect to eventually vote for anyone elected in that side project for the main Hall. Granted, Barnes is back in my queue, but he is in it.

[dgarza]

but he is ineligeble, so all your arguments are for nothing. also, it is hard to measure someone's batting average if they played less than 80 games a year, i dont care what era it was in.

My arguments are not for nothing. I am not trying to get Ross Barnes into the HOF. If I wanted to do that, I would not be on baseball-fever.com.
After 2500 PAs, we should be able to say something...

[Naliamegod]

Hmm... he did something better than any other player did. That used to be called talent.

How is it talent to take advantege of a rule then struggle afterwords?

[Freakshow]

How is it talent to take advantege of a rule then struggle afterwords?

As dgarza explained, Barnes' struggles were not mainly due to the rule change. He had major injuries.

Yes, Barnes was the acknowledged master of the fair/foul hit. But his numbers, especially XBH and fielding, are proof of his all-around great play. Someone famous (Cap Anson? maybe others?) named Barnes to their all-time team years later. They would hardly have done this if he were just a one-trick pony.

Barnes was a great player who excelled in every facet of the game

[jalbright]

The real problem I have with Barnes is the brevity of his productive years. Bill Lange was a heck of a player, but only for seven years--he's not getting my vote for BBF HOF. Chino Smith was superb for six years--he's not getting my vote either. Barnes has essentially the same qualifications and issues IMO, and will receive the same treatment.

Jim Albright

[dgarza]

Barnes has essentially the same qualifications and issues IMO,

Barnes's qualifications far surpass those of the other 2 mentioned.
He was a bit more than just another Kal Daniels.

[jalbright]

Maybe not Kal Daniels or even Lange, but I really don't care how good a guy is for six years, it's not enough IMO--and Barnes wasn't much after those first six years--three years, one almost completely lost to injury, the other two hopelessly mediocre. 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.