Which short career guys deserve to be in Cooperstown?

[jjpm74]

There is a short list of players who have under 10 years in baseball who show up in HOF conversations from time to time: Bill Joyce, Bill Lange, Dave Orr, Chino Smith, and Jim Creighton. Which if any of them deserve to be in Cooperstown?

[jjpm74]

If anyone votes other, please specify the player. For clarity purposes, for early MLB/NA/professional/amateur star baseball players, entire career including pre-1871 play should be factored into consideration. For NeL and pre-Nel guys, the same 10 years in the sport rule applies. Only players from these eras/leagues with less than 10 total seasons would be eligible for this poll. Players who's careers were cut short because they were banned (Benny Kauff, et. al) and players still active are not eligible.

[KCGHOST]

Careers of 8 years or less are simply too short.

[Paul Wendt]

I'm not sure Hall of Fame membership is the way to go with Jim Creighton but I voted for him. The response to his death and the pilgrimages to his gravesite during the 1860s show that he was recognized for changing the game --for making the game we know, I imagine his contemporaries and immediate followers saying. Creighton's fastball, and a rising fastball at that, had an impact that Cummings's curveball did not have.

That doesn't answer the question about players, so
I didn't vote for Orr, who died after 8 mlb seasons, but I would have voted for an Orr who continued to bat with nearly his 1883-87 success during 1888-90. With "nearly" his early success he would be 3rd/4th/5th all-time by OPS+, with Barry Bonds and Lou Gehrig, rather than 14th.

[soberdennis]

The HOF rules clearly state that a player must have 10 years. So the answer is none until the rules are changed, which may be never.
If a short career guy gets in, you may consider Riggs Stephenson. His main problem was he had very few full seasons, which skews his career stats like batting average. Stephenson played over 10 years. But his career of a bunch of short seasons would qualify him more under the "Short career " category.
Stephenson probably should not be in. Neither should any of the players in the poll.

[jjpm74]

The HOF rules clearly state that a player must have 10 years. So the answer is none until the rules are changed, which may be never.

Given that Addie Joss is in the HOF despite playing only 9 seasons means that the HOF has the ability to bend the rules and will make an exception under special circumstances.

[jjpm74]

If a short career guy gets in, you may consider Riggs Stephenson. His main problem was he had very few full seasons, which skews his career stats like batting average. Stephenson played over 10 years. But his career of a bunch of short seasons would qualify him more under the "Short career " category.
Stephenson probably should not be in. Neither should any of the players in the poll.

Stephenson is an interesting case in that an early injury prevented him from being able to field on a daily basis. I wonder how he might have fared if the DH existed in his time? He'd possibly be comparable to players like Edgar Martinez.

[Brooklyn]

I voted "none", but didn't agree with the second half "(Short career guys do not deserve to be in Cooperstown)"

I wouldn't rule that out in the future. for example, if something tragic were to happen to Pujols after this year and he only had 9 years, I'd seriously consider him.

[Fuzzy Bear]

My two picks are Hal Trosky and Al Rosen.

They had short careers, but extremely high peaks, especially Rosen.

[jalbright]

If I had to pick one, it would probably be Chino Smith. As a batter, he did it all except maybe walk. Think Rogers Hornsby in the 1920s (for seven years) but as a lefty corner OF, and you've just about got him nailed. I'm a career guy, though, and even someone that good just doesn't overcome such a short career in my book.

[THE OX]

Given that Addie Joss is in the HOF despite playing only 9 seasons means that the HOF has the ability to bend the rules and will make an exception under special circumstances.

If you discount Sandy Koufax's 2 years sitting on the Dodger bench as a bonus baby and a couple more seasons where he was still learning his craft, only 1961 thru 1966 were really productive and HOF-caliber seasons.

Joss, in his 9 years, had more like 7 HOF-caliber seasons.

[rsuriyop]

I'd only be willing to induct short-career stars from the 1870's, like Barnes and McVey since there's hardly anyone else from that time period who's already gotten in.

[Chadwick]

With the exception of certain 19th century stars (none of whom were listed in the poll), I don't believe any player not meeting the 10-season minimum eligibility threshold is Hall-worthy. Not because of the rules, but rather because I don't believe any had a career with enough value to merit the honor.

Depending on how you want to define "short career", I'll give a shout out to Albert Belle.

[Gee Walker]

I can't think of anyone from the 20th century that I'd put in - there are far too many candidates if you decide that five outstanding seasons and five cups of coffee should be enough to get into the Hall of Fame.

As far as the 1800's go, I can see Bob Caruthers as a deserving candidate.

[philipthegreat]

Careers of 8 years or less are simply too short.

My sentiments exactly.