Ross Barnes
 

When looking at some of the state teams, I was struck by the fact that I couldn't tell the difference between Ross Youngs and Ross Barnes.

Ross Barnes had a unique career, as summed up by BaseballLibrary.com:

"The clever second baseman was the NL's first batting leader (.429) with Chicago in 1876. Having already won two National Association titles (1873, '75), he was also the first player to lead two different leagues in batting. He specialized in "fair-foul" hits, squibbed bunts that landed fair, rolled foul, but remained in play under the rules of the time. When the rules were changed before the 1877 season his BA plummeted."

I guess it did. His lines from b-r.com are amazing. He was headed to the Hall of Fame -- a great hitter, a fine middle infielder with great range. In his best season, 1876, with the NL Chicago White Stockings, he hit .429 with 21 doubles, 14 triples and scoring 126 runs ... in 66 games.

After that ... pfffft! I have never heard of a player being so undone by a rule change before or since. In fact, it's hard to believe that a player with such great speed and bat control could not adjust to the change.

Does anyone know more about this guy?

His NetShrine entry:

Roscoe Charles Barnes
1876 - 1881 (Chicago NL, Cincinnati NL, Boston NL)
Former National Association of Professional
Base Ball Players star (1871-75). Famous for
bunting across the foul line for hits (until 1877 rule
required a hit to land or pass a bag fair ).

Doubt he would've gone to the hall, not everyone recognizes the NA.

All I know is that I put him into NetShrine. ;)

Re: Ross Barnes
 

YT - There's an extensive list of pitchers that were undone by the various rule changes in regards to pitching deliveries and distances in the 1880's and 1890's.

In 1877, Barnes was injured as well - and that also led to his decline (not just the rule change).

In fact, he filed suit against the Chicago club for non-payment of his contract when he could not play. He lost, because the judge ruled "the club cannot pay for something it did not receive".

I know that a lot of 19th Century buffs advocate Barnes' selection to the HOF. However, despite his injury, Barnes' decline appears to be SO MUCH a result of the rule change that his ability to get a hit according to the rules we know (i. e. no fair-foul hits) is such that one wonders if he would have been regarded as just an ordinary player in his own time, had the ban on fair-foul hits been in effect through his entire career.

What I really have to wonder is this, though: Barnes hit a great number of doubles and triples to go along with his many (presumably) bunt hits. So we know that the man had great speed and great bat control.

Other players under the same rules didn't hit .429, did they?

The man could hit, rule or no rule, and he could run. Why couldn't such a player adapt to the rule change and turn in a Rod Carew type of career, if nothing else?

I don't fully advocate his HOF worthiness - but I don't think his decline was all that due to the rule change Fuzz, as I said in my other post.