From SABR member Adam Darowski at Hall of Stats on January 18, 2013:
When Deacon White was inducted into the Hall of Fame last December, I saw more than a couple commenters around the web asking why they’re still inducting 19th century players. After all, they’re all dead. What’s the point, right?
The point is that if a player had a Hall of Fame career, he should be in the Hall of Fame. I don’t care if he’s been retired for five years or 125 years. The Hall should be for players who deserve it. All of them.
I feel we are not (or should not) be done electing 19th century players. Bill Dahlen came two votes away from getting in with the Deacon. Dahlen is absolutely Hall-worthy with a Hall Rating of 144. Dahlen has a lot if support from the saber (and SABR) crew. But Dahlen’s near-inevitable induction shouldn’t close the book on the 19th century quite yet.
There are a few 19th century players in the Hall of Stats who are not yet in the Hall of Fame. Most of them hover near the borderline with Hall Ratings slightly above 100. But one stands out above the rest.
Glasscock was a 19th century shortstop. Check that… he was the best 19th century shortstop. In fact, he was called “King of the Shortstops”. He was the best shortstop before Bill Dahlen. In fact, I find it interesting that Dahlen receives a lot of support from objective-minded folks while Glasscock garners very little. The difference between the two is not nearly as large as the gap in their support.
Comparing Glasscock to Bill Dahlen should be taken as incredibly complimentary towards Glasscock. The problem, of course, is that Dahlen is not actually in the Hall of Fame, despite very strong credentials. I also like to compare both to Alan Trammell, which is similarly problematic. All three are similarly valuable. All three are not Hall of Famers. All three should be.
Read the full article here: http://www.hallofstats.com/articles/hall-of-fame-case-for-jack-glasscock
Originally published: January 18, 2013. Last Updated: January 18, 2013.