Author Topic: In this Summer of Misery, consider Cecil Travis, who belongs in the Hall of Fame  (Read 589 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online welch

  • Posts: 16297
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
In this Summer of Misery, consider the Nats' shortstop, Cecil Travis, who belongs in the Hall of Fame. Travis holds the highest lifetime batting average of any shortstop. In 1941, when he was 27, Travis led the AL in hits, with 218. He had a longer hit streak than Ted Williams, at 24 games. He had a higher batting average, at .359, than Joe DiMaggio.

Then he joined the Army, serving four years. He froze his feet during the Battle of the Bulge, losing his mobility and some of his balance. When he returned to the Nats a few weeks after The Bomb ended the war, he was no longer the hitter he had been.

Compare Travis to all of the Hall of the Very Good players who have gotten into the Hall of Fame, while Travis never got a single vote during his initial eligibility.


The numbers: https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/travice01.shtml

The story: https://baseballegg.com/2017/09/06/the-hall-of-fame-case-for-cecil-travis/


Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63104
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Travis played for the Senators, who moved to Texas.

Offline Ali the Baseball Cat

  • Posts: 17657
  • babble on
And certain current Nats go on the injured list for 6 weeks for an unplanned fart.

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 2240
Travis played for the Senators, who moved

He also played for the Nationals, whose history continues to be a focus here by the team right down to the current name.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63104
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
He also played for the Nationals, whose history continues to be a focus here by the team right down to the current name.
Nope. Only played for the Senators.


Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39409
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
Travis played for the Senators, who moved to Texas.
actually, the team he played for moved to Minnesota. 

Online welch

  • Posts: 16297
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Travis played for the Senators, who moved to Texas.

Cecil Travis played for the Washington Nationals. That was Clark Griffith's official name for Washington's team, until the Old Fox died and son Calvin renamed the team in 1956. Of course, many fans called the team "the Senators", and even Topps called Nats players "Nationals" one year and "Senators" another.

They were always "the Nats" to fans and in newspaper headlines.

The Griffith team, "the Old Senators", moved to Minneapolis after the 1960 season.

The expansion team, called "the Senators" officially and "the New Senators" by Washingtonians, were supposed to continue the records of the Old Senators. That team moved to Texas ("Short Stinks!") after 1971.

(For the record, the first professional team in Washington was called "the Nationals". It dated from about 1870. Several professional teams played in Washington, several organized by this guy, a soldier in the Union Army who opened a pool hall and who loved baseball: Mike Scanlon, organizer and manager of the next Washington Nationals, in the late 1870s. See https://www.baseball-reference.com/register/player.fcgi?id=scanlo002mic

Some time in the 1880s, Washingtonians began to call the team "the Senators", but even Shirley Povich could not find out why. And Povich had talked with Scanlon in the 1920s.)

Online welch

  • Posts: 16297
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
On Cecil Travis, consider that even with nearly four seasons out of baseball during the war, and even with a couple of miserable seasons trying to play on bad feet, he still finished with a lifetime batting average of .314 and an OPS of .786. He was an All-Star three times, and, remember that the first All Star game was played in 1933.

For a comparison, consider that Derek Jeter finished with a lifetime average of .310, and an OPS of .817. Travis, remember, had begun to pull the ball and to to hit harder only when he was about 25. He had an OPS of .930 in 1941, the last season before he went to war. Jeter had an OPS at or above .900 only twice, and, of course, never hit .359, like Travis. Jeter did hit .349 in 1999, the season he had 219 hits, one better than Travis's 218. (Of course, Jeter was playing the 162 game season while Travis was playing in the 154 game season)

Offline Duke of Earl

  • Posts: 743
Travis played for the Senators, who moved to Texas Minnesota.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63104
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Whatever. Thats not this team. This team came from Montreal. Trying to align to other teams that not only moved but were in a different league is dumb. The Browns arent claiming the Ravens 2001 championship as theirs.

Offline Duke of Earl

  • Posts: 743
Whatever. Thats not this team. This team came from Montreal. Trying to align to other teams that not only moved but were in a different league is dumb. The Browns arent claiming the Ravens 2001 championship as theirs.
What a ridiculous, stupid observation.  Travis played for the city of Washington.  Many fans of the current Nationals were fans of the old teams, both of them.  Nobody's claiming that the team from Montreal is the same team as either of the two earlier Washington teams.  You just love to stir up crap.

Oh and do you realize your analogy is twisted.  The Browns aren't claiming the Ravens championship?  As if  the new Montreal expansion team is claiming the Nationals 2019 championship.

 Take the time to try to think through your posts better.

Offline Slateman

  • Posts: 63104
  • THE SUMMONER OF THE REVERSE JINX
Its two completely different franchises. I dont claim Senators history any more than I claim Expos history. Cecil played for a different franchise.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39409
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
The problem is the current team goes by the name of the former team even though they are different organizations and franchises. I actually do think some Twins records are held by Walter Johnson on baseball's books. Steve Rogers played more baseball for the Lerner Nationals than Cecil Travis. That said, Cecil Travis means a heck of a lot more to Washington baseball than Steve Rogers.

We'll leave Jose Vidro out of this.

Offline van lingle mungo

  • Posts: 284
Travis played for the Senators, who moved to Texas.

Um....nope. But whatever.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25688
The problem is the current team goes by the name of the former team even though they are different organizations and franchises. I actually do think some Twins records are held by Walter Johnson on baseball's books. Steve Rogers played more baseball for the Lerner Nationals than Cecil Travis. That said, Cecil Travis means a heck of a lot more to Washington baseball than Steve Rogers.

We'll leave Jose Vidro out of this.

I guess Nationals was the name of the franchise once upon a time?  But when folks posting here were fans they were the Senators.  I have no problem with them posting about Washington baseball history.  We can debate the other stuff but no right or wrong.  My preference would be to not call the Senators the Nationals  when they were not called that but that's just me. We have former Expos fans here also and they can talk about their players if they want.
 

 Slate is just unhappy that Finnegan pitched well in a high leverage situation yesterday. 


Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25688
Its two completely different franchises. I dont claim Senators history any more than I claim Expos history. Cecil played for a different franchise.
So when the Senators moved the Minnesota and Washington got an expansion franchise should the fans have totally wiped out their thoughts about the prior team?  It's not all that simple.  Just think what you want and let others think as they please.  What's the big deal?

Offline Chelsea_Phil

  • Posts: 135
So when the Senators moved the Minnesota and Washington got an expansion franchise should the fans have totally wiped out their thoughts about the prior team?  It's not all that simple.  Just think what you want and let others think as they please.  What's the big deal?

This makes sense to me.  Slateman is a dummy for thinking the way he does.

Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25688
This makes sense to me.  Slateman is a dummy for thinking the way he does.
He likes to argue. Who know what he really thinks? He does get the discussions going. Like a good leadoff hitter.

Offline Kevrock

  • Posts: 13788
  • That’s gonna be a no from me, doge.
Imagine arguing DC baseball history with Welch :lmao:

Thanks for the thread, Welch. Yet another piece of Senators/Nats history I got to learn because of this forum.

Online JCA-CrystalCity

  • Global Moderator
  • ****
  • Posts: 39409
  • Platoon - not just a movie, a baseball obsession
I guess Nationals was the name of the franchise once upon a time?  But when folks posting here were fans they were the Senators. 

As I understand it, the official name for the first franchise was the Nationals (the Griffith team), but somehow the Senators was the nickname. Maybe by the 50s they switched the name?  That's why the Travis baseball card I think says Nationals.  I think the Short-era team was always the Senators.

Welch or others, can you clear this up for us non-natives who were born late? 

Offline Five Banners

  • Posts: 2240
As I understand it, the official name for the first franchise was the Nationals (the Griffith team), but somehow the Senators was the nickname. Maybe by the 50s they switched the name?  That's why the Travis baseball card I think says Nationals.  I think the Short-era team was always the Senators.

Welch or others, can you clear this up for us non-natives who were born late? 

From what I recall hearing, it was common here and apparently on some other teams to go by multiple names, including among the fan base and some of them multitude of newspaper writers in particular towns. The A’s would also be called the Mack men for example I think after Connie Mack, and a lot of media reports had the Nats called the Griffmen or the Griffs as it related to Clark Griffith.

When I looked up the 1924 World Series Game 7 local front pages, the Post prominently had Nationals while the Washington Star had Senators. I think they also use the other names for them the papers and even the Griffs thing. Nationals seemed to remain very prominent in official publications. I have seen early/mid 50s publications with Washington Nationals on it, including I think the team annual magazine with Roy Sievers on it.

I think Phil Wood indicated the main change from Nationals to Senators alone was when the team commissioned an artist to come up with a team mascot. Rather than a Weeble looking eagle such as the 2005 version of Screech leaping to mind, the artist is reputed to have replied along the lines of “what’s a National?“ It seems they might have figured it would be easier to do a rendering of a senator, apparently came up with mint julep looking guy, which eventually gave way to a three cornered hat looking guy throwing a baseball, and Senators became the name for the next 15 years or so.

Of course the shortened nickname “Nats” continued to endure. (It does not seem unreasonable to envision a scenario where “let’s go Nats” preceded “let’s go Mets” by quite a while.)



Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25688
From what I recall hearing, it was common here and apparently on some other teams to go by multiple names, including among the fan base and some of them multitude of newspaper writers in particular towns. The A’s would also be called the Mack men for example I think after Connie Mack, and a lot of media reports had the Nats called the Griffmen or the Griffs as it related to Clark Griffith.

When I looked up the 1924 World Series Game 7 local front pages, the Postprominently had Nationals while the Washington Star had Senators. I think they also use the other names for them the papers and even the Griffs thing. Nationals remained very prominent in official publications. I have seen early/mid 50s publications with Washington Nationals on it, including I think the team yearbook with Roy Sievers on it.

I think Phil Wood indicated the main change from Nationals to Senators alone was when the team commissioned an artist to come up with a team mascot. Rather than a Weeble looking eagle such as the 2005 version of Screech leaping to mind, the artist is reputed to have replied along the lines of “what’s a National?“ A apparently, they figured it would be easier to do a rendering of a senator, apparently came up with mint julep looking guy, which eventually gave way too baby three corner hat looking guy throwing a baseball, and Senators became the name for the next 15 years or so.

Of course the shortened nickname “Nats” continued to endure. (It does not seem unreasonable to envision a scenario where “let’s go Nats preceded let’s go Mets by quite a while.
Thanks for posting that.

Online welch

  • Posts: 16297
  • The Sweetest Right Handed Swing in 1950s Baseball
Clark Griffith insisted that his team was the Nationals as long as he owned it. Bob Wolff always began a broadcast, whether TV or radion, with "Welcome to YOUR Washington Nationals". My dad usually called the team the Senators, so I did, too. When Clark Griffith, a founder of the AL called the Old Fox, died after the 1955 season, his son, Calvin took over the team. Calvin Griffith re-named the team the Senators. In 1959, Calvin put "Senators" across the front of the uniform, replacing the 'W'. The 1950s teams had "Washington" on the road uniforms.

The obvious point is that Cecil Travis played for Washington, same as Joe Judge, Buddy Myer, Firpo Marberry, Goose Goslin, Roy Sievers, Harmon Killebrew, Walter Johnson, Frank Howard, and Ken McMullen. Search for "Ken McMullen stats", and they will show that McMullen played for the Dodgers and then, year after year, for the Rangers. The same search will tell you that Walter Johnson pitched for the Twins. That is idiotic.

The serious point, though, is that Cecil Travis has been overlooked by Cooperstown voters for about 70 years.

Cecil Travis was a great hitter getting better as he got stronger. At 27, he matched Williams and DiMaggio in 1941, as Williams said. Cecil Travis hit .359 and led the league with 218 hits. His hitting had "slid" below .300 only in one season, 1939, when he hit .292, after hitting .355 and .344 the two previous seasons. Travis began to pull the ball in 1940, and had an OPS of .930 in 1941. Then he was drafted, then he fought WW2, and then his froze his feet during the war in Europe. He returned to baseball but could not come back after his war injury. Even then, his sad 1946 season -- .252 with .641 OPS -- would make him a starter on this Nats team.

Cecil Travis belongs in the Hall of Fame.


Offline Natsinpwc

  • Posts: 25688
Travis career OPS+ was 108 per Baseball Reference. So not much better than the league average. Looks like he was on his way to the HOF but lost years to the War and then his stats plummeted when he came back.

You let Dick Allen in and then we can talk Cecil.