From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Why Rabbit is in the Hall
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:47:10 GMT

In article <21JAN199323511961@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu> doctor8@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu (Jason Abner Miller) writes:
>In article <1993Jan20.012605.27165@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes...
>>In article <8824@news.duke.edu> fls@econ.duke.edu (Forrest Smith) writes:

>>>	Rabbit Maranville is in the Hall of Fame because he played for the
>>>1914 Miracle Braves who won the World Series.  Anybody can play 3000 games,
>>>but it takes a real HoFer to win the World Series for (a) Boston, and
>>>(b) the Braves.

>>He and Boston great Babe Ruth also played for the 1935 Braves, one of 
>>the all-time worst teams.    Both ended their careers that year.

>	Rabbit is the best example of exactly why "mediots" shouldn't run
>the Hall of Fame voting.  He played for 23 years, 

How many 23-year men *aren't* in the Hall?  20+ is close to being
a qualification right there...

>only excelling in 1921
>and 1922 for the Pirates, but the sportswriters loved him.  He was a clown,

You sell him short.  In 1914 he set an all-time record for chances at 
short, and led the league in DP; Evers, at 2B, turned more thaty year 
than he ever had with tinker.  Most observers considered him head and 
shoulders above all other SS in his time; Pete Palmer, in TB I, awards
him two MVP's (1914 and 1919, I htink) based on the goofy Fielding
Runs stats, to be sure, but his fielding numbers are SO far above 
those of his contemporaries that it's hard to ignore completely.

>and one of those players that people loved to watch, even if he wasn't
>great.

Well, in the field he must have been as close to great as it gets, then.

>	The Hall of Fame Yearbook, which finds good things to say about
>every inducted player, is nebulous on Rabbit.  It merely says:
>	"Rabbit compensated for his lack of size with an overabundance of
>spunk and determination.  He came up with the Braves in 1912 at the age
>of 20 and he went on to play 23 years and 2670 games - combinations
>exceeded only by Ty Cobb and Eddie Collins.  An excellent fielder famous
>for his "basket catches", Maranville was considered an outstanding clutch
>performer.  A Member of the 1914 Miracle Braves".

Great field, longevity at a tough position.  Not Honus Wagner, but
not Rafael Santana, either.

>	Not exactly glowing ... so why did he get in?  It took him 20
>years after he retired.  He was elected in 1954.  He died on January 
>5th of 1954.   APparently, the sportswriters were so saddened that they
>payed him the ultimate tribute by giving him enshrinement.

Except, as has already been pointed out, that he'd been getting more
and more votes over the years.

Now, if you'd like to explain Morgan Bulkeley to me...

>>(Oddly enough, the 34 and 36 teams weren't all that bad.  Anyone know what 
>>the story was?)

>	When your #2 starter strikes out 34 men in 210 innings, in any
>age, you have problems.  Having no power or average doesn't hurt either.
>Without Wally Berger (34 HRs, .295, 130 RBI for a team with no on-base)
>this team had nobody else even remotely memorable (Rabbit and Babe
>retired early in the year)

Right.  Now, how did they *get* so bad?  So bad so fast?  And how did 
they recover to mediocrity so soon?

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.sport.baseball