The rest of the center fielders

[Cougar]

My ranking of the top eligible center fielders not enshrined.

1. Dale Murphy
2. Vada Pinson
3. Al Oliver
4. Dom DiMaggio
5. Brett Butler
6. Doc Cramer
7. Cy Williams
8.(t) George Van Haltren
8.(t) Jimmy Ryan
10. Paul Hines
11. Wally Berger
12. Curt Flood
13. Cesar Cedeno
14. Jimmy Wynn
15. Dummy Hoy
16. Amos Otis
17. Fred Lynn
18. Reggie Smith
19. Willie Wilson
20. Mike Donlin


Notes.

a. I'd endorse, with steadily diminishing enthusiasm, the first dozen for the Hall.

b. Murphy is head and shoulders the class of this field. He is the only person who will be in the top half of the Hall when he is inducted.

c. Pinson, Oliver, Cramer -- 2700+ hits, among other achievements.

d. Dom DiMaggio receives extra credit for the war years costing him much of his prime.

e. Leadoff-hitting CF seem to be very overlooked. Several examples on this list, the most recent being Butler's quick bounce from the ballot.

f. Ryan and Van Haltren are so close it's amazing. Both 2500+ hits, .300+ BA.

g. Cy Williams was a four-time HR champion, two-time OPS champ.

h. Paul Hines won a Triple Crown and had a ton of Black and Gray Ink.

g. Berger led league in HR and RBI while playing for a 115-loss team, 61.5 games out of first.

h. Flood is where he is because of his role as a pioneer/contributor who also happened to be an All-Star caliber player.

i. Cedeno and Wynn are nearest misses. Astrodome made it hard on them. They both did everything well.

j. Hoy got 2000 hits and stole nearly 600 bases -- and he was deaf.

k. Lynn had two extraordinary seasons in 1975 and 1979; the remaining seasons, he was just a good player.

l. Smith could be listed as easily in RF.

m. Wilson, over various seasons, led the league in BA, hits, runs, stolen bases, and at-bats. He led the AL five times in triples.

n. Donlin was perhaps the biggest head case of the turn of the 20th century -- and that's saying something. But he had a career BA of.333

[leecemark]

Cougar, I recommend you give Berger a closer look. He is #1 on my list of CF not in. In fact, he is higher on my list of ALL Cf than on your list of CF not in the Hall (#10). I may have him a little overrated, but he was a great player. A couple things against him. He had a short career and that does have to count against him. He also started his career in 1930 and people tend to think of him as one of the inflated hitters of the 20s and 30s. That isn't really true. Hitting declined rapidly in the Nl in the 30s and by mid-decade the AL and NL were playing very different games. The AL remained a hitters paradise pretty much up to WWII. The NL turned into a pitchers league within a couple years of the 1930 explosion. He also played in one of the worst hitters park of all time. Braves field had a runs factor at 89% of league and a HR factor of 67% of league. His already impresive HR figures would have been about one third higher in an average field, about 50% higher at Wrigley Field. If you take a hard look at them both, Berger is clearly a better hitter (and fielder and baserunner) than Hack Wilson. I see him as the best NL centerfielder between Carey and Mays.
While on the topic of park effects, Wynn and Cedeno had their numbers supressed even more than Berger. The Astrodome had run and HR factors of 89 and 61% of league. Add the effect of the 60s into Wynn's numbers and he has to be one of the most underrated players of all time. I have him #13 amoung CF and probably underrate him myself. Cedeno was the most exciting and talented player in the NL before he hurt his knees. He had one of the greatest starts to his career of anybody ever, but comes up a little short for his career in my book.
Dale Murphy has his own thread and I've endorsed him there. Reggie Smith is another guy I think was very underrated. He is at least a border line case. Freddy Lynn was a personnal favorite. I have him ahead of Murphy and Wynn, as well as at least 6 HoFers on my list. Him I may be overating. His numbers were never great after he left Fenway, although injuries were a factor as well. His start/peak were great though.
Pinson's peak was a little short of the guys above and, while I'm willing to give some credit for hanging around and being a solid player after your peak, he hung around along time as a very average player. Oliver was all BA and that kind of one dimensional contribution has to be a little higher than his was to get my vote. He is just under my line. Doc Cramer also had a empty average, but his was lower than Oliver's in a better hitting era. He is way under the line for me. Dom DiMaggio and Brett Butler were very similar players. DiMaggio maybe a little better, but Butler played alot longer. I'd be happy to have either on my team, but I can't see either for the Hall. I'm pretty much out of the game of endorsing pre-1900 players regardless of their numbers so that leaves about a half dozen of your guys off my list.
To Summarize:
Yes
1. Berger
2. Murphy
3. Wynn
Maybe
4. Lynn
5. Smith
6. Cedeno
Close, but no
7. Pinson
8. Oliver
9 Otis
10. DiMaggio

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
Cougar, I recommend you give Berger a closer look. He is #1 on my list of CF not in. In fact, he is higher on my list of ALL Cf than on your list of CF not in the Hall (#10). I may have him a little overrated, but he was a great player. A couple things against him. He had a short career and that does have to count against him. He also started his career in 1930 and people tend to think of him as one of the inflated hitters of the 20s and 30s. That isn't really true. Hitting declined rapidly in the Nl in the 30s and by mid-decade the AL and NL were playing very different games. The AL remained a hitters paradise pretty much up to WWII. The NL turned into a pitchers league within a couple years of the 1930 explosion. He also played in one of the worst hitters park of all time. Braves field had a runs factor at 89% of league and a HR factor of 67% of league. His already impresive HR figures would have been about one third higher in an average field, about 50% higher at Wrigley Field. If you take a hard look at them both, Berger is clearly a better hitter (and fielder and baserunner) than Hack Wilson. I see him as the best NL centerfielder between Carey and Mays.

Full disclosure -- I really had a hard time figuring out what to do with Berger. I had him as high as #2 behind Murphy, but then the short career started working against him.

Was I supposed to rank him behind Pinson, who had 1200 more hits, playing in the 1960's in an integrated league? Can't do it. Then Oliver is a lot like Pinson, then the leadoff hitters, whom I wanted to rank high because I think they've been slighted, and then the 19th century guys, again with 1000 more hits. So he ended up 11th. For what it's worth, I still endorsed him for the Hall, so we're just quibbling on tiers here.

He obviously had a very high peak, and his home park was very tough on him, not to mention the lousy team surrounding him. He really didn't have a bad season between 1930-1938, but his AB started declining once he hit 30 years old, I presume from injuries (not really sure); he was really a part-timer, albeit a good one, starting in 1937. Then, suddenly, he was finished.

You know what the shape of his career reminds me of -- Mattingly. He's a guy who had half a no-questions-asked HOF career, and then lost a good chunk of his effectiveness. Difference was Mattingly was able to hang on with his glove and BA and hit a few milestones; Berger just faded away short of any counting stat milestones to speak of -- although he did maintain a .300 career BA.

I'd be leery of making too much of the comp with Hack Wilson, though, since a good argument could be made that Wilson himself is a mistake.

[leecemark]

I think Mattingly is a reasonable comparison, although I would have picked Dale Murphy as the most similar recent player. Berger suffered a shoulder injury in 1936 that cut deeply into his power and wasn't really an impact player after that. Before that he was probably the most dangerous power hitter in the NL. In spite of his short tenure he holds the career HR record for Braves Field with 105 (in a park that was active for 40 years). During his 7 seasons with the Braves there were only 3 other years in which he had a teammate reach double figures in HRs - with a high of 13. Obviously the short career hurts him, but a career .522 slugging percentage in a park which played like the Astrodome is pretty impressive. At his peak he was better than Murphy and Murphy didn't play that much longer. Its close and I can see the argument for Murphy, but I'll go for the nearly forgotten Berger.

[tibber]

it seems to me like brett butler was very underrated while he played too. if memory serves he only made one all star team, but he was a very consistant hitter for several years. plus he came back to play after fighting cancer...that would have to at least give him somewhat of a push, imo.

i'd support fred lynn too, but his amazing start probably hurt his chances, despite putting up solid numbers throughout his career. i'm not reallt familiar with the other guys, so i'd have to do some more research.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
I think Mattingly is a reasonable comparison, although I would have picked Dale Murphy as the most similar recent player. Berger suffered a shoulder injury in 1936 that cut deeply into his power and wasn't really an impact player after that. Before that he was probably the most dangerous power hitter in the NL. In spite of his short tenure he holds the career HR record for Braves Field with 105 (in a park that was active for 40 years). During his 7 seasons with the Braves there were only 3 other years in which he had a teammate reach double figures in HRs - with a high of 13. Obviously the short career hurts him, but a career .522 slugging percentage in a park which played like the Astrodome is pretty impressive. At his peak he was better than Murphy and Murphy didn't play that much longer. Its close and I can see the argument for Murphy, but I'll go for the nearly forgotten Berger.

No, Murphy was a better player than Berger.

At the plate, their peaks are about the same, I'd say. Murphy then had a long decline period that Berger did not, building up his rate stats and dragging down his percentage stats. Whatever; what Murphy did when he was scuffling for the Phillies is not really relevant, I'd say.

Sure, Murphy had a big park advantage, but the 80's were no richer an offensive environment than the 30's. And while Berger's teams were bad, Murphy's weren't much better. Still, given the park advantage, let's give Berger a small advantage at the plate.

Murphy was a much better fielder, a gold glover; Berger was average in CF. Murphy was a better baserunner and basestealer. Murphy was more durable. (Modern medicine and training probably helped.)

And just as another tiebreaker, Murphy played in an integrated league, with blacks and a large Latino presence. In Berger's day, of course, this was not so. This is not Berger's fault, of course, but it is undeniable that Murphy's competition was superior.

Taking all these other factors into account, one must give the edge to Murphy.

The others -- a good case for Berger could be made; I won't contest the point. You're more of a peak guy, I'm more of a career guy, so we're basically just looking at the subjective weights we put on different factors. The only players discussed with peaks that compare to Berger's are Murphy, Lynn, and perhaps a couple of the old timers.

[leecemark]

Cougar, I must admit that I also believe the quality of play has improved in each decade and any close call should probably go to the more recent player. Given that, it is inconsistent for me to pick Berger over Murphy. I think we all probably "discover" forgotten stars and maybe build them up a little beyond where they belong on our all time lists. So I officially concede this debate to you and move Murphy up 2 places on my CF list just ahead of Berger. I'll be satisfied if this discussion has put Wally on the radar of some members who had perhaps not thought much of him before.

P.S. If you want to keep Murphy climbing the next guy I have ahead of him is Larry Doby.

[Cougar]

Close call on Murphy-Doby, but given Doby's huge dose of extra credit for integrating the AL, I'm disinclined to argue against him.

Anyway, once a guy's in the Hall, I don't much like to rank them against each other anyway. It seems like bringing up your SAT scores after you've graduated college somehow.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
While on the topic of park effects, Wynn and Cedeno had their numbers supressed even more than Berger. The Astrodome had run and HR factors of 89 and 61% of league. Add the effect of the 60s into Wynn's numbers and he has to be one of the most underrated players of all time. I have him #13 amoung CF and probably underrate him myself. Cedeno was the most exciting and talented player in the NL before he hurt his knees. He had one of the greatest starts to his career of anybody ever, but comes up a little short for his career in my book.


I think we agree on Cedeno. His numbers would be better had he not played in the AstroDome, but assuming his knees would have still given out, it wouldn't have mattered if he were playing in Denver.

On Wynn -- it's such a hard case, because putting him in the Hall requires giving him massive credit for the 60's, and also for the Dome and Dodger Stadium -- while at the same time, overlooking his early and abrupt decline. Essentially, you've got to give him every benefit of the doubt possible, while papering over any negative factors (such as the terrible season following the stabbing by his wife). That's asking a lot.

I think we can strongly suspect that Wynn was much better than his stats appear, and that he was probably a Hall of Fame-caliber player, but I'm not sure we have enough solid evidence to put him in the Hall. I suppose Wynn may have just been unlucky; someone has to be the best CF not in the Hall, and it may well be him.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
Reggie Smith is another guy I think was very underrated. He is at least a border line case. Freddy Lynn was a personnal favorite. I have him ahead of Murphy and Wynn, as well as at least 6 HoFers on my list. Him I may be overating. His numbers were never great after he left Fenway, although injuries were a factor as well. His start/peak were great though.


Originally posted by tibber
i'd support fred lynn too, but his amazing start probably hurt his chances, despite putting up solid numbers throughout his career. i'm not reallt familiar with the other guys, so i'd have to do some more research.

Fred Lynn had one of the highest peaks of any player discussed so far. His 1975 and 1979 seasons are among the best ever by a CF (especially ones not in the upper echelon). But the rest of the seasons of his career was good but not great. Didn't excel at any one thing, generally: BA around .285, 20ish HR, nice CF glove. All-Star caliber, but not HOF. And he was incredibly fragile. He played 150 games once. Once. 150 games even.

Smith has similar career numbers to Lynn, without the signature seasons, but with more production in the typical season. Fine player, but more an All-Star than a HOF.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
Pinson's peak was a little short of the guys above and, while I'm willing to give some credit for hanging around and being a solid player after your peak, he hung around along time as a very average player. Oliver was all BA and that kind of one dimensional contribution has to be a little higher than his was to get my vote. He is just under my line. Doc Cramer also had a empty average, but his was lower than Oliver's in a better hitting era. He is way under the line for me. Dom DiMaggio and Brett Butler were very similar players. DiMaggio maybe a little better, but Butler played alot longer. I'd be happy to have either on my team, but I can't see either for the Hall.

Pinson was a 5-tool guy who did everything well, except perhaps take a walk. While his HR power was only moderate, he did have great extra-base power, piling up lots of doubles and triples., leading the league in each twice. He also led the league in hits twice and runs once. His peak was early, and he had one of those long decline periods that can be so deleterious to a player's legacy. His decline probably looks worse than it was, though, because the end of his peak corresponds with the beginning of the worst of the neo-dead ball era in the mid-60's. In fact, he was still building up Gray Ink points through 1971.

Oliver was a more ordinary fielder and baserunner, but like Pinson, his average was not empty -- he had great extra-base power, despite his HR power being only moderate. No one has it more doubles than Al Oliver and not gotten to the Hall of Fame or been a mortal lock to get there (or been Pete Rose). He was the CF on a WS winner ('71 Pirates), flanked by Stargell and Clemente, and had his best season for Montreal in 1982, leading the NL in BA, hits, extra-base hits, total bases, doubles, and RBI.

Now we get to Cramer; he's the closest thing to an empty average in here, but 2705 hits and a .296 average (well over .300 in his prime) is contributing something, I'd say. Furthermore, he didn't just get on base -- he scored: 90 or more runs in nine consecutive seasons. He was also a fantastic defensive CF and a monster in the postseason, hitting .387 in two WS. In the 1945 WS (where he got most of his postseason PT), he probably would have been the MVP if they awarded them at the time -- him or Greenberg. Cramer is one of the leadoff hitters that doesn't get enough credit, in my opinion.

DiMaggio and Butler are two of the others. DiMaggio missed three seasons during WWII; if he hadn't he'd certainly have well over 2000 hits and perhaps a .300 average too. Scored a ton of runs on the great Red Sox teams of the '40's. Had decent extra base pop, leading the league in triples once and placing in the top 10 in doubles several times. For the era, he stole a lot of bases. And he was an exceptional defensive outfielder, about as good as his brother(s) from both most contemporary accounts and modern statistical analysis.

Butler, as Tibber points out above, gets some inspirational points for beating cancer. When a player has a public triumph like that, it's good for the game. He was similar to Dom, but with less extra-base power -- he did hit a lot of triples, but he got them with his legs. He stole many more bases, 558, 23rd all time, and 11th in the live ball era. A very good defensive outfielder (though not in the class of DiMaggio). Led the league in runs twice, and scored 100 runs six times and 90 eight straight. Led the league in hits one year and walks the next -- an odd combination. Both those years he led in Times on Base. The year after that, he led in sacrifice hits. Led in triples four times, and was in the top ten 11 of 12 consecutive seasons.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
I'm pretty much out of the game of endorsing pre-1900 players regardless of their numbers so that leaves about a half dozen of your guys off my list.


Do you mean pre-1920 guys? Cy Williams (1912-1930) and Mike Donlin (1899-1914) should be OK with you.

All I can say about Van Haltren, Ryan, Hines, and Hoy is check out their numbers. Van Haltren and Ryan both have 2500+ hits with a .300+ average and boatloads of SB, extra base hits, and runs scored. Hines was the games first superstar, with more Gray Ink than Eddie Murray. Hoy stole 600 bases and drew enough walks and HBP to add 100 points to his OBP vs. his BA -- while deaf.

[leecemark]

On Hoy, being deaf makes him a nice story, but doesn't get him extra credit as a player with me. Same with Butler and cancer. Great story, no extra credit. Guess I'm just not very sentimental.
Donlin and Williams are below the Hall line on thier merits not when they played. Donlin was a terriffic hitter - when he felt like playing. He felt like playing barely a thousand games and drove in 543 runs. Nowhere near overcoming his many negatives - as you say he was the biggest headcase of his time. Cy Williams has a better case than Donlin was his career was a little short too and the Baker Bowl deserves alot of credit for his HR totals.

[leecemark]

Pinson you'll never sell me on. I actually saw him play a fair amount int he late 60s and into the 70s and was definately not impressed. Thats a little unfair as his prime years were well behind him, but it covers alot of years. His case is unusual. I don't know of anybody who was quite the star he was early and was an then an average player for soooo long. He is a little like Lynn, except both his peak and his long lower level career were both worse than Freddy. The ONLY edge I'd give him over Lynn is better health. Thats worth something, but not enough.
Pinson's career pct stats of 286/330/442 would be amoung the worst in the Hall. He had a flukish 25 steals in 1971 (first double digits since 68) and I guess that must be his late grey ink appearance. Looks like his first good number since the 67 season. Pinson played through 1975 and got 400+ AB through 1974. Below are his last good numbers in various categories:
300 BA - 1965
350 OBP - 1965
450 SLG - 1967
20 HR - 1970 (first since 65)
90 run - 1967
90 RBI - 1965
30 2B - 1966
10 3B - 1967
190 hits - 1965 (and his hit total is his biggest Hall argument)
I'm not even asking for great numbers over the second half of his career, just good ones. They aren't there. He was an average or worse hitter for longer than he was an All Star type guy.
Al Oliver was a better hitter than Pinson. If he had been a good CF I'd support his case. He was below average out there though. Not very good range and a weak arm. I always liked him better at firstbase, but his teams thought they got more value by having him in center most of his career. They may be right because I wouldn't like his bat as much at first. I like his case better than Pinson's and I wouldn't surprised if the VC likes it someday too. He is a little below the line for me though.
Just a quick note on Lynn. When I moved Murphy up 2 spots to get him over Berger the other guy he passed was Lynn.

[leecemark]

Doc Cramer posted a 340 OBP when great hitters were posting 340 BAs. His career slugging was 375 when great players were slugging over 500. He wouldn't have hung around long enough to get 2700 hits or "win" his hypothetical Series MVP if not for the war. I wouldn't want him leading off for my team in any circumstances, much less in an all time context. Dom DiMaggio was a much better player than Cramer. Give him max credit for the war years and he is close to the border of the Hall. Still a pretty short career without any truely great seasons though. Butler drew walks and played a good centerfield. He really didn't have much punch though and his baserunning is way overrated. He stole 500, but was thrown out almost 1/3 of the time. You can make a case his baserunning hurt his team more than it helped. I probably wouldn't go that far, but I won't give him much credit for it either. Again better than Cramer, but short of the Hall

[leecemark]

Cougar, I think we've agreed that Jimmy Wynn played in the most difficult hitting conditions of any player we've discussed - quite possibly the most difficult hitting conditions of any player in the modern era. He still had more HR and RBI than Cy Williams who played mostly in the Baker Bowl. His OBP is terrific even without giving him any adjustment at all. He was a very good defensive CF and baserunner. I don't think you have to give him the benifit of every doubt to get him over the line. If you give him credit for half of what be would probably have done under normal conditions he is a Hall of Famer. I know many people here and amoung real life voters can't get by the 250 BA, but if you look at his all around game, you have a hard time arguing he wasn't a great player. Worst case, I'd put him in the top 5 of the players on your list.

[leecemark]

--I've been thinking of what we mean when we say someone should or should not be a Hall of Famer. There is a pretty wide range of opinion on what we think the Hall of Fame standard should be.
-- What we can't disagree on is who actually is a Hall of Famer. That, of course, would be those already inducted. Whatever we may think about the wisdom of some of these choices they are all actual Hall of Famers and they represent the standard that exists in the real world. So when someone says inducting Dale Murphy lowers the Hall standards it isn't hard ot see if that is really true or not. If he is better than at least half of the members of the Hall he is elevating the overall quality of the Hall. If he is better than a quarter of them, he is at least not lowering the standard.
--There are 21 CF in the Hall. Three are Negro Leaguers (Bell, Charleston and Stearns) and two were 19th century guys (Duffy and Hamilton) so I will leave them out of this comparison for now. That leaves 16 CF as a basis for comparison to CF not in the Hall. Anyone better than #9 then should be admitted to the Hall in the interest of improving the overall quality of CF in the Hall. Anyone better than #13 could be admitted without reducing the overall quality to a noticable degree. Whether you agree with my rankings doesn't really matter unless you have a problem around spot 8-9 or 12-13 because those are the cutoff points for "should be admitted" and "could be admitted".
1. Cobb, 2. Mays, 3. Mantle, 4. Speaker, 5. DiMaggio, 6. Snider, 7. Puckett, 8. Doby, 9. Carey, 10. Averill, 11. Roush, 12. Ashburn, 13. Wilson, 14. Waner, 15. Combs, 16. Manush
So any centerfielder better than Max Carey absolutely is a Hall of Fame quality player and any player better than Hack Wilson deserves serious consideration. Murphy easily meets this standard and many of the other players we have discussed on this thread have a pretty good case for being better than Wilson and/or Carey.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
On Hoy, being deaf makes him a nice story, but doesn't get him extra credit as a player with me. Same with Butler and cancer. Great story, no extra credit. Guess I'm just not very sentimental.
Donlin and Williams are below the Hall line on thier merits not when they played. Donlin was a terriffic hitter - when he felt like playing. He felt like playing barely a thousand games and drove in 543 runs. Nowhere near overcoming his many negatives - as you say he was the biggest headcase of his time. Cy Williams has a better case than Donlin was his career was a little short too and the Baker Bowl deserves alot of credit for his HR totals.

Hoy: Not extra credit as a player, but extra credit as a contributor to the game, the lore, etc. Feats of courage or grit are worthy of note. Anyway, 600 steals is 600 steals, whether you hear or not.

Butler: Ditto, more or less.

Donlin -- Yeah, he's well below the line, no kidding. I said I could support the top dozen on my list for the HOF -- Turkey Mike was 20, and he mainly landed there because it felt awkward to stop at 19 and I had to pick someone.

Cy Williams: Short career? He played 2000 games, 19 seasons, was a regular for 14 of them (with chaff at beginning and end of career). His career looks weird because it straddles the dead ball and live ball eras, but he lived on the league leaderboard in both eras. He ought to be recognized for adjusting his game effectively. Home parks helped, sure, but only so much -- the player's still got to do the job, and Williams did.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
Pinson you'll never sell me on. I actually saw him play a fair amount int he late 60s and into the 70s and was definately not impressed. Thats a little unfair as his prime years were well behind him, but it covers alot of years. His case is unusual. I don't know of anybody who was quite the star he was early and was an then an average player for soooo long. He is a little like Lynn, except both his peak and his long lower level career were both worse than Freddy. The ONLY edge I'd give him over Lynn is better health. Thats worth something, but not enough.
Pinson's career pct stats of 286/330/442 would be amoung the worst in the Hall. He had a flukish 25 steals in 1971 (first double digits since 68) and I guess that must be his late grey ink appearance. Looks like his first good number since the 67 season. Pinson played through 1975 and got 400+ AB through 1974. Below are his last good numbers in various categories:
300 BA - 1965
350 OBP - 1965
450 SLG - 1967
20 HR - 1970 (first since 65)
90 run - 1967
90 RBI - 1965
30 2B - 1966
10 3B - 1967
190 hits - 1965 (and his hit total is his biggest Hall argument)
I'm not even asking for great numbers over the second half of his career, just good ones. They aren't there. He was an average or worse hitter for longer than he was an All Star type guy.

OK, I'll never sell you, but just for anyone else who's reading:

Yeah, Pinson's last big-time year was 1965. Coincidentally, 1966 was the beginning of the offensive nadir in baseball. Everybody had a bad year in 1966. How bad was it? .288, with 35 doubles, 6 triples, 16 HR, and 18 SB. Pretty good for a guy, who, when you're fair about it, wasn't really a power hitter. Next season, 1967, was a little better -- .288 again, with 28 doubles, 13 triples (led league), 18 HR, and 26 SB. Oh, and he's still a great CF glove who'd be winning GG were it not for Mays, Clemente, and Flood. Had first real subpar season in 1968 -- 1968, mind you, when again, everyone was struggling -- and got traded. Bad year in 1969, traded again to Cleveland, where he had a comeback season -- for an awful team. Next year, he slipped, but still stole 25 bases. Then he was a pretty ordinary OF for two teams in four years (still batting OK and fielding and stealing bases well), before retiring. It's just not as bleak as you paint it.

Originally posted by leecemark
Al Oliver was a better hitter than Pinson. If he had been a good CF I'd support his case. He was below average out there though. Not very good range and a weak arm. I always liked him better at firstbase, but his teams thought they got more value by having him in center most of his career. They may be right because I wouldn't like his bat as much at first. I like his case better than Pinson's and I wouldn't surprised if the VC likes it someday too. He is a little below the line for me though.

Don't really take issue with this, although there's value to playing CF intrinsically, even if your fielding is merely adequate (which is about all Oliver was defensively).

Originally posted by leecemark
Just a quick note on Lynn. When I moved Murphy up 2 spots to get him over Berger the other guy he passed was Lynn.

Yeah, I was able to infer this, but thanks for the clarification.

[leecemark]

--When are 600 (or 594) steals not 600? When all but 80 of them came prior to the modern stolen base rules like Hoy's did. I'd guess half of his were extra bases taken on hits rahter than what we would call stolen bases.
I guess saying Cy Williams had a short career was kind of foolish on my part. What I might have said was that he only had 6,000 AB abd only six seasons where he batted 500 times. On the other hand, two of the seasons he didn't bat 500 times he led the league in homers. It wasn't all Baker Bowl either as he led once when with the Cubs. I tend to think of him as a Philly of the 1920's, but he actually was 32 when the live ball era got started . I don't have him in my top 25, but maybe I should. Although Wynn did get more HRs and RBIs under more difficult conditions. And was a better fielder and baserunner.
One last shot at Pinson and then I promise to quit picking on him. There were three distinct phases to his career. His first 5 years from 1959-63 were very good. He was the second best CF in the NL and posted averages of 310/357/495. If he had sustained that another five years he is a Hall of Famer. There was a drop off starting in 1964. I agree it was partly that numbers were falling across the board, but some of it was actual decline. He fell to the middle of the pack of NL centerfielders behind Willie Mays, Curt Flood, Willie Davis, Matty Alou and Jimmy Wynn. Pinson's averages for his 2nd five years (1964-68) fell to 284/326/442. If he had sustained that another 5 years he still had a strong Hall case. However, phase three of his career was distinctly not what you are looking for in a Hall of Famer. He was traded to the Cardinals for 1969 and they moved him to RF. That started a journeyman career where Pinson moved from one bad team to another as an underpowered corner OF. For his last 7 seasons Pinson posted averages of 262/301/385. That would be unacceptable for a Hall of Fame SS much less an OF.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
When are 600 (or 594) steals not 600? When all but 80 of them came prior to the modern stolen base rules like Hoy's did. I'd guess half of his were extra bases taken on hits rahter than what we would call stolen bases.

OK, fair enough. I knew that, but you caught me napping. Maybe I should knock him down a few pegs. However, I wasn't saying Hoy should be in the Hall anyway, so why are you picking on a poor dead deaf guy so relentlessly? Meanie. :p

Originally posted by leecemark
I guess saying Cy Williams had a short career was kind of foolish on my part. What I might have said was that he only had 6,000 AB and only six seasons where he batted 500 times. On the other hand, two of the seasons he didn't bat 500 times he led the league in homers. It wasn't all Baker Bowl either as he led once when with the Cubs. I tend to think of him as a Philly of the 1920's, but he actually was 32 when the live ball era got started . I don't have him in my top 25, but maybe I should. Although Wynn did get more HRs and RBIs under more difficult conditions. And was a better fielder and baserunner.

Er, Wynn didn't have more RBI. And as tough as the 60's were, the teens were probably worse (although of course the ballpark differential helped Williams quite a bit.) So any benefit Williams garnered from the '20s is watered down a whole lot.

A lot of those seasons under 150 games you note are seasons where there weren't 150 games played. World War I disrupted schedules quite a bit, and more prosaically rainouts and games halted by darkness were not as consistently made up in those days for easily imaginable reasons.

But since you're conceding my point on Cy W., I won't pile on anymore, except for one last thing -- imagine if he'd played his whole career with the live ball. He'd probably have at least 100 more HR and a slugging pct. somewhere over .500. You're talking career numbers probably comparable to Duke Snider.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
Doc Cramer posted a 340 OBP when great hitters were posting 340 BAs. His career slugging was 375 when great players were slugging over 500. He wouldn't have hung around long enough to get 2700 hits or "win" his hypothetical Series MVP if not for the war. I wouldn't want him leading off for my team in any circumstances, much less in an all time context. Dom DiMaggio was a much better player than Cramer. Give him max credit for the war years and he is close to the border of the Hall. Still a pretty short career without any truely great seasons though. Butler drew walks and played a good centerfield. He really didn't have much punch though and his baserunning is way overrated. He stole 500, but was thrown out almost 1/3 of the time. You can make a case his baserunning hurt his team more than it helped. I probably wouldn't go that far, but I won't give him much credit for it either. Again better than Cramer, but short of the Hall

Who said that Doc Cramer was a great hitter? That's never been the standard (the only one, anyway) for the Hall of Fame.

(Anyway, who was posting .340 career averages in the period 1929-1948? Not exact contemporaries, but close: Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Williams, Musial -- Al Simmons and Jimmie Foxx come close. If that's the standard you can house the whole Hall in a nicely appointed Winnebago.)

Cramer was a very good hitter for a long career. That's the plain meaning of a .296 career BA and 2705 hits.

And if you want to ding him for the war years, you've got to cut him some slack for not getting regular PT until he was 26 because he was bottled up in the A's system while they enjoyed one of the best teams ever. In retrospect, not playing Cramer over Mule Haas (who?) in CF was pretty clearly a mistake on Mack's part. (Not that it hurt the teams much; he probably just didn't want to rock the boat).

More generally, we're too slow to appreciate the abilities of well-rounded players who just happen to lack a power stroke. Cramer was a Gold Glove caliber CF (key defensive position) who hit .300 pretty much every year and was a good baserunner (albeit not a base stealer).

Dom DiMaggio, in a shorter career interrupted by the war, did the same things, plus had moderate power, walked a lot and stole bases too (albeit with a higher than optimal caught rate).

Brett Butler was very similar to DiMaggio, but had less power, ran much more, and played longer. Probably not the fielder the other two were (Cramer and Dom were two of the best dozen or so ever over extended careers), but very good -- never won a gold glove, but it wouldn't have been shocking if he did.

These are winning ballplayers who just lack gaudy home run totals. Shoot, Pinson's like that too -- he hit 20-odd home runs in his very best year, but he really wasn't a power guy -- he hit more for average, plus was great on the basepaths and in the field.

And there are guys like this at other positions -- Stan Hack at 3b, Willie Randolph at 2b, and now perhaps Alan Trammell at SS come to mind. Sterling defense at key defensive positions, good-to-great baserunning, and good hitters.

Power hitting is an important skill, maybe even the most important, but not the only one. When you've got guys that excel at every other important skill over a long career, that makes them pretty great players in my eyes.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by leecemark
I've been thinking of what we mean when we say someone should or should not be a Hall of Famer. There is a pretty wide range of opinion on what we think the Hall of Fame standard should be. What we can't disagree on is who actually is a Hall of Famer. That, of course, would be those already inducted. Whatever we may think about the wisdom of some of these choices they are all actual Hall of Famers and they represent the standard that exists in the real world. So when someone says inducting Dale Murphy lowers the Hall standards it isn't hard ot see if that is really true or not. If he is better than at least half of the members of the Hall he is elevating the overall quality of the Hall. If he is better than a quarter of them, he is at least not lowering the standard. There are 21 CF in the Hall. Three are Negro Leaguers (Bell, Charleston and Stearns) and two were 19th century guys (Duffy and Hamilton) so I will leave them out of this comparison for now. That leaves 16 CF as a basis for comparison to CF not in the Hall. Anyone better than #9 then should be admitted to the Hall in the interest of improving the overall quality of CF in the Hall. Anyone better than #13 could be admitted without reducing the overall quality to a noticable degree. Whether you agree with my rankings doesn't really matter unless you have a problem around spot 8-9 or 12-13 because those are the cutoff points for "should be admitted" and "could be admitted".
1. Cobb, 2. Mays, 3. Mantle, 4. Speaker, 5. DiMaggio, 6. Snider, 7. Puckett, 8. Doby, 9. Carey, 10. Averill, 11. Roush, 12. Ashburn, 13. Wilson, 14. Waner, 15. Combs, 16. Manush
So any centerfielder better than Max Carey absolutely is a Hall of Fame quality player and any player better than Hack Wilson deserves serious consideration. Murphy easily meets this standard and many of the other players we have discussed on this thread have a pretty good case for being better than Wilson and/or Carey.

This is actually one very thoughtful way of approaching it, although I would quibble with your rankings quite a bit. (Manush is better than the three players above him, and was a LF anyway.)

Here's how I'd summarize about where we are. Murphy is #1, and is around the median for CF. He's a "should be admitted"

After that, there's a pretty good jumble of players with competing claims for the #2 spot -- Berger, Pinson, Lynn, Oliver, and Wynn have all come up -- and while these players and others discussed would all be in the lower half of CF in the Hall, several might not be in the bottom quartile, and thus at least "could be admitted" under this construct.

If there's only one "should be" not inducted, the HOF has actually done a pretty fair job with CF.

[leecemark]

--Cougar, I agree the Hall has done a better job at CF than most postions. After a quick check on Manush I see that you are correct -he only played about 300 games in center and was primarily a LF- so I would say 12 of 15 CF (post 1900 major leaguers - all the 1800s guys and Negro leaguers were good choices) were guys who truely belong to the Hall. There are at least a dozen CFers not in who have a case for being better than Wilson, Waner or Combs. We've agreed now that Murphy is the #1 CF not in the Hall and I'll be promoting him whenever the opportunity comes up.
-- Next in line we haven't agreed on. I think Wynn, Lynn and Berger are the next group. You've given me something to think about on Oliver and Williams. I sort of agree with you on DiMaggio and Butler, although Butler remains outside my top 25. Pinson is in my top 25, but a ways behind where you have him. He actually may sink due to my deeper look at him. Cramer can't sink, because he was never on the radar for me. Clearly you value longevity related stats to a greater extent than I do. There are lots of different ways to look at players and I don't know that one is neccessarily better than another, just personal preference. It been a fun discussion. I wish we had drawn in a few more participants.

[Cougar]

Yes, I agree. I'm rather surprised more of the usual suspects didn't jump in here. This has been a very good discussion.

We do have different subjective weights on peak vs. career, etc. Yours are probably as good as mine.

Here's the amazing thing -- the longer I looked at Pinson, the more I liked him, exactly the opposite of what you found. Funny. I had a lengthy response written up, but I accidentally deleted it. Here's the short version:

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's how I'd segment Pinson's career:

Cup of Coffee (1958) -- Welcome to the bigs; unnoteworthy

Early Reds (1959-1965) -- Great. Probably best CF in league other than Mays (who may be best CF ever, so no shame there).

Late Reds (1966-1968) -- Slips a little. Hard to tell if it's part of the overall offensive drought -- certainly it's partly that -- but he does fall back to the pack. There's a cluster of quality CF of which Pinson is a part, as is Mays (who had started to slip), Wynn, both Alous (Matty and Felipe), and Flood. (Willie Davis didn't really hit full stride until later.)

But -- Pinson is still among the league leaders in hits, runs scored (11th - 1967, with 90), total bases, doubles, triples, extra-base hits, and stolen bases during this period.

In 1966, he's 8th in the league in hits, 9th in stolen bases, and 3rd in doubles.

In 1967, he is 3rd in the league in hits, is 4th in steals, 6th in extra-base hits, and leads the league in triples, plus 90 runs scored as noted above.

In the worst year of all, 1968, (both for him and for every hitter in the live ball era), he still finished in the top 10 in doubles, triples, and steals.

This is still a very good player.

Cardinals (1969) -- Bottoms out here. Also moved to RF. Just a bad season all around. It happens.

Indians (1970-1971) -- Comeback year with Cleveland in 1970, finds power stroke, hits 24 HR, drives in 82 runs, bats .286. Not All-Star level, but rather good. In 1971, he hits for power less, runs more -- steals 25 bases while hitting .271. RBI and runs scored quite low, but Indians are an awful 102-loss team. Also moves back to CF for last full season in 1971.

I suspect he led off in '71 based on stats, but don't know for sure. Anyway, he and Nettles are easily the best players on this team over these two years; maybe Fosse's in the discussion too, before Rose leveled him at '71 ASG. Sudden Sam McDowell is the best pitcher.

Angels/Royals (1972-1975) -- Now he's the underpowered, part-time corner OF you refer to, although the only season I'd call him unhelpful is '75, when he was apparently done. Still runs well on the bases and fields well; hits for average OK.

Summary -- Seems to me that Pinson had about 7 years as great and 3 years at very good on the Reds; maybe 6 and 4 if you want to throw 1964 into the lower category. St. Louis was a bust, but he bounced back in Cleveland with two more good years before winding up his career with a couple expansion teams. 12 good seasons, half of them great ones. That's pretty typical of a lower half HOF, which is all I've thought Pinson was all along.

------------------------------------------------------

Last point -- Your phase 1, 2, 3 model of Pinson's career (Great, Good, Hanging On) -- You could apply the same model to Tim Raines' career, which had three distinct segments of about 6-7 years each. Does that make Raines any less a Hall of Famer?

Actually, the fact that both Raines and Pinson had their HOF caliber seasons early in their careers and then had long post-prime careers may have something to do with why Pinson never made the Hall and why Raines may have more trouble than he should.

By the time Raines reaches the ballot, it'll be 25 years after his peak -- memories of his greatness will be rather remote, and memories of his merely being a useful player, like he was with the Yankees or toward the end in Chicago, will be much more proximate. Pinson, same thing.

Leece, you say you saw Pinson at the end and were never impressed. Well, if your memories of Raines only extended to, say, 1994, you'd wonder what all the fuss was about with him too.

By the way, before people flip out on me, Raines was better than Pinson. There's just a similarity in the shape of their careers I'm taking note of here.

[leecemark]

--I thought the recent discussion on Jim Edmunds might make this old thread of interest. Where does Edmonds fit into the "best of the rest" of CFers?

[Cougar]

Edmonds always reminded me of Fred Lynn, but I think he's now shown himself to be a clearly better player.

I'd put him about even with Wally Berger now, but he will likely surpass him. Even a decline phase from here on out would do it assuming it's not too abrupt.

That said, I really am reluctant to make formal HOF cases for guys before they're eligible. Our evaluation of today's numbers is very, very much in flux now, and when we have some context on things at some point in the future Edmonds' case may seem very, very different than it does now.

[Cougar]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, by the way. It's really just you and I bantering, but I think it's one heck of an interesting and collegial discussion.

[leecemark]

--I thought it was about the most interesting two man discussion I had at BBF. Never understood why we didn't get more people joining in. Maybe the second time around.
--As for Edmunds, I have never really considered him an elite CF. Taking a good look at him more recently he stacks up fairly well against the second tier of HoF CF. I haven't found a place for him on my list, but he is probably going to end up top 15 anyway.

[RuthMayBond]

Edmonds always reminded me of Fred Lynn, but I think he's now shown himself to be a clearly better player.

I'd put him about even with Wally Berger now, but he will likely surpass him. Even a decline phase from here on out would do it assuming it's not too abrupt.Edmonds will have quantity over Berger, but I'm figuring Edmonds has peaked (unless you give him the same accusations many give Bonds). Edmonds is already slightly below Berger in OPS+, and very similar in Range Factor+. Good comparison

[Cougar]

--As for Edmonds, I have never really considered him an elite CF. Taking a good look at him more recently he stacks up fairly well against the second tier of HoF CF. I haven't found a place for him on my list, but he is probably going to end up top 15 anyway.

Yeah, I never thought he was elite either, but then you look at his numbers, particularly what he's done with the Cardinals, and "Whoa!"

On the other hand, he's never led the league in anything, has probably never been the best player on his own team (I'd have to check to be sure, but I doubt it), and generally hasn't had the profile in the game that elite CF usually do. He's considered at best a second-tier star, and being in his mid-30's he's almost certainly peaked. You like to see HOFers do better than that.

Then again, many of the first tier stars were juicing, so given that there could be a major reevaluation coming.

(Of course we don't know for sure if Edmonds was juicing, but he doesn't really look the part or have the kind of career arc that juicers generally do, so I tend to think not.)

[RuthMayBond]

(Of course we don't know for sure if Edmonds was juicing, but he doesn't really look the part or have the kind of career arc that juicers generally do, so I tend to think not.)He has the exact kind of career that a juicer might. Starting in '97 (with the exception of the disastrous injury-plagued '99, he's basically improved every year). If it's fair for Bonds, it's fair for Edmonds.

[leecemark]

--Edmunds has been better in his 30s than he was in his 20s and that is unusual. He certainly isn't above suspicion in this shadowy age. However, Bonds took a tremendous leap forward (over already HoF numbers) in his late 30s. That is more than usual and I think most of us had drawn some damning conclusions even before the BALCO evidence came out.

[Cougar]

1. Juicers' games usually suffer away from the plate; Edmonds remains an excellent CF.

2. Edmonds hasn't had the body type changes typical to juicers. If anything, he looks a little out of shape, although maybe his uni's just baggy.

3. Juicers tend to get hurt a lot, with weird, nagging injuries. Edmonds has been more durable in his 30's than his 20's.

You're right about the performance line, but there's more than one way to be a late bloomer.

That said, I'll agree that he's not above suspicion. But this isn't a case like Bonds or McGwire where it's as plain as the nose on your face.

[RuthMayBond]

1. Juicers' games usually suffer away from the plate; Edmonds remains an excellent CF.

2. Edmonds hasn't had the body type changes typical to juicers. If anything, he looks a little out of shape, although maybe his uni's just baggy.

3. Juicers tend to get hurt a lot, with weird, nagging injuries. Edmonds has been more durable in his 30's than his 20's.

You're right about the performance line, but there's more than one way to be a late bloomer.I'm not sure how you know #1. Bonds hasn't been hurt much, mostly missed to be with his father.

[Cougar]

Compare Edmonds to Bonds.

1. Edmonds was and is a GG CF. Bonds was a GG LF, now he's lousy out there. Edmonds hasn't had a appreciable drop-off in speed; Bonds can't run at all anymore, and he used to steal 50 bases a year.

2. This is subjective, but Edmonds looks about the same to me. When you look at him at 25 and then again at 35, it looks like normal aging -- he's a little heavier, but who isn't at 35 campared to 25?

Compare this with the evolution in Bonds's appearance, where he's gone from a lithe, fleet footed guy to the Incredible Hulk. Not to mention that his forehead's just shy of Klingon.

3. It is true that Bonds has been pretty durable...I'm thinking more of guys like McGwire, Giambi, Canseco, Juan Gonzalez, etc. Guys that miss entire halves of seasons and it's hard to put your finger on what's wrong with them.

Plus, where do you get that Edmonds has improved every year? Seems to me he took one giant leap forward when he went from Anaheim to St. Louis, which I'd ascribe to both a change in scenery and a notable improvement in plate discipline, and from then on he has been incredibly consistent, with little appreciable difference in his rate stats from 2000-2004.

[RuthMayBond]

Compare Edmonds to Bonds.

1. Edmonds was and is a GG CF. Bonds was a GG LF, now he's lousy out there. Edmonds hasn't had a appreciable drop-off in speed; Bonds can't run at all anymore, and he used to steal 50 bases a year.

Plus, where do you get that Edmonds has improved every year? Seems to me he took one giant leap forward when he went from Anaheim to St. Louis, which I'd ascribe to both a change in scenery and a notable improvement in plate discipline, and from then on he has been incredibly consistent, with little appreciable difference in his rate stats from 2000-2004.Bonds turns, uh, forty-one this year. Edmonds did slug .571 in '96, so he wasn't always crap in Cal

[STLCards2]

This is one of the worst things that steroid users have done to the game. Yes, Edmonds' second six seasons have been better than his first six. Players are supposed to improve their second 5-6 seasons. Early 30's are supposed to be a player's prime. Also consider, Edmonds was more of an injury prone player before he came to St. Louis, and he also entered a lineup with much more protection, (McGwire, Pujols, Rolen, Lankford,etc.) Isn't it a shame that anybody who improves during the middle of their career, the way they are supposed to, will be assumed of juicing. If Edmonds keeps getting better into his late 30's and early 40's, then suspicions can be raised.

[leecemark]

--Actually most player have their best seasons in their late 20s. Of course, it varies from player to player and it isn't especially usual for a hitter, especially a power hitter, to peak in his early-30s. If Edmunds had played 20 years ago non one would find his career path odd. Hopefully, that will also be true for future players.
--It is unfortunate that the sceptre of steroids has tainted our views of an entire generation. I think the best we can do is discount the production of those proven guilty or glaringly obvious. I can't write off every power hitter of the last 20 years.. And steroids almost certainly haven't been limited to power hitters although it would seem to help most in that area.

[mac195]

My ranking of the top eligible center fielders not enshrined.

1. Dale Murphy
2. Vada Pinson
3. Al Oliver
4. Dom DiMaggio
5. Brett Butler
6. Doc Cramer
7. Cy Williams
8.(t) George Van Haltren
8.(t) Jimmy Ryan
10. Paul Hines
11. Wally Berger
12. Curt Flood
13. Cesar Cedeno
14. Jimmy Wynn
15. Dummy Hoy
16. Amos Otis
17. Fred Lynn
18. Reggie Smith
19. Willie Wilson
20. Mike Donlin

Yikes. Lynn and Smith look shockingly low on that list to me. Wynn is pretty low as well. I'd put all of those guys ahead of Oliver, DiMaggio and Butler.

[The Dude]

Lynn above Butler and Dom? Lynn had what, 2 good seasons? Butler was consistently one of the top Defensive and Offensive players year in and year out. DiMaggio was a force from the moment he stepped into the league to the moment he left. He missed 3 peak seasons due to WWII. If it hadn't been for that (and him leaving the game early, even when he was still hitting .300 a year), we would be talking about the DiMaggio brothers in the HoF.

[mac195]

Lynn had two great seasons, better than any of Butler's. Their overall careers are pretty similar in value, although Butler played about 250 more games. DiMaggio had a shorter career, even if you give him full credit for the 3 seasons he lost in the war. He was great with the glove, but a relatively lightweight hitter playing in a pre-integration league. You can certainly make a case for any of them, but there is no way Dimaggio and Butler rank 12 places ahead of Lynn on the CF list.

[The Dude]

I agree Lynn shouldn't be that low. However, I'm not sure if any of them belong in the HoF.

[DoubleX]

Edmonds has been great the past few years and the best CF in the game since Griffey hit his injury streak a few years back. However, the thing that bothers me a little about Edmonds is that at age 35, he doesn't even have 1500 career hits. He does 302 homeruns, which would put him on pace for a pretty good career number for a CF, but how much stock can we put in his power numbers given the steroid era?

Even though Edmonds has been the hotter player for the past few years, right now I'd say that Bernie Williams is the better Hall candidate as I feel his offensive statistics will be more well rounded than Edmonds, but that could definitely change.

[STLCards2]

During the juiced era, 302 homeruns looks a lot better when it comes from somebody who isn't on 'roids. How good is McGriff's total looking now?

[The Dude]

What sucks for McGriff, is he was a home-run hitter whose career got split in two. In the pre-Juice/Live ball age before '93, he was top 5 in home runs 5 years straight, with 2 leads. However, his numbers were dwarfed by all the users in the mid 90's-early 00's. I mean, from '88-'92, he was nearly .300/.400/.500 every year.

[STLCards2]

That does suck. As each new 'roids user gets caught, I get closer to wanting to put him in Cooperstown.

[The Dude]

Yeah. I used to think of him as one of those players that I might someday include, but he's starting to inch closer and closer to very borderline these days.

What hurst McGriff is that in '95 he finally got caught up in the Home run craze and started striking out a lot and hitting less home runs. If he would of continued with just his normal pace, he would have hit 30+ every year. However, he squeezed out a few more good OBP years after getting drafted to Tampa when he went back to his old style.

[RuthMayBond]

Lynn above Butler and Dom? Lynn had what, 2 good seasons? Butler was consistently one of the top Defensive and Offensive players year in and year out.Butler had three years with an OPS+ above 123. Lynn had NINE.

[leecemark]

--Lynn doesn't get the credit he deserves because his biggest success came so early. His best seasons were a match for DiMaggio's. He remained a very good player (if too often injured) for nearly a decade after his last great season in 1979. He never matched the brillance of 75 or 79, but then only the very greatest players could.

[The Dude]

Yes RMB, Lynn is god becuase his OPS+ is higher then Butlers. Becuase OPS+ is the only stat that matters.

Butler blows lynn out of the water in Gray Ink and has the lead in black ink. Butler's AVG and OBP are both higher.

[RuthMayBond]

Yes RMB, Lynn is god becuase his OPS+ is higher then Butlers. Becuase OPS+ is the only stat that matters.

Butler blows lynn out of the water in Gray Ink and has the lead in black ink. Butler's AVG and OBP are both higher.I'm not sure how good the inks are. At least you didn't say HOF Monitor. If Ichiro can be over the level of a likely HOFer after 4 years. And somehow you omitted that pesky 112 :eek: gap in slugging :laugh :laugh

[The Dude]

I'm not sure how good the inks are. At least you didn't say HOF Monitor. If Ichiro can be over the level of a likely HOFer after 4 years. And somehow you omitted that pesky 112 :eek: gap in slugging :laugh :laugh

Well, his ink is mainly spread over 5 stats (Runs, Hits, Triples, Walks, and Stolen Bases). He He had a lot of top 3's in walks and triples. The runs, SB's, and Hit's are more spread out.

I was going to include the slugging gap, but I'm trying to make a case for Butler. :D

[RuthMayBond]

Well, his ink is mainly spread over 5 stats (Runs, Hits, Triples, Walks, and Stolen Bases). He He had a lot of top 3's in walks and triples. The runs, SB's, and Hit's are more spread out.

I was going to include the slugging gap, but I'm trying to make a case for Butler. :Dthe problem I have with triples black ink is Butler won this twice with a total of nine triples. Even *I* was only nine triples behind the leader those years :laugh And his grey ink SB in '91, he stole 38 and was caught 28 (plus '93). He hurt his team stealing, and was penalized with grey ink

[leecemark]

--Butler only had a 68% success rate for his career. His base stealing didn't help and probably hurt his teams. He was an ok fielder and hiiter for average whose only real plus skill was taking a walk. I'd be happy to have him on my team but he doesn't belong in a HoF discussion and he wasn't nearly as good as Lynn.

[Cougar]

His best seasons were a match for DiMaggio's.

OK, that part is a bit of an overstatement, no. Joe DiMaggio, right?

Lynn's best season (1979) was good, but off the top of my head Joe D. had at least 5 seasons which were clearly better.

[leecemark]

--I think you'd be hard pressed to find 5 better seasons in DiMaggio's career better than Lynn's 1979 campaign. I'm not sure you can find one. For ease of comparison, we'll compare OPS+ first. Lynn's was 176 in 1979. DiMaggio beat that twice, but not by much (183/184). Both those better OPS+ seasons for DiMaggio were pre-integration/pre-war so you can make a pretty strong argument that being better than the league by 76% in 1979 was more impressive than being 83 or 84% better in the 1930s. Certainly its close enough that you can call it a match.
--In 1979 Lynn led the league in BA, OBP and SLG. DiMaggio never led in two out of three in the same season and never led in OBP period. Lynn was also a GG CF that season, so I'm not sure DiMaggio has much if any advantage defensively over the young Freddie Lynn. Lynn's 1975 season wasn't quite as good, but it would have been about the 5th best season in Dimaggio's career. Outside those two seasons, DiMaggio was obviously the better player by a significant margin, but I'll stand by my comment that Lynn's best was a match (or darn close to it) for DiMaggio's best.

[Cougar]

Don't stand too close to Mark -- lightning's going to strike him! :hp

http://www.baseball-reference.com/l/lynnfr01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dimagjo01.shtml

OK, seriously now, going back and looking at the raw numbers, there are only three Joe D. seasons that are indisputably better than Lynn's '79: 1937, 1939, and 1941. But there are a couple others where you'd have to split hairs to say they weren't at least as good: 1938, 1940, 1948. Their rookie seasons are actually quite comparable, except that Lynn walked quite a bit more.

Lynn was a very good fielder, really a great one in his prime. DiMaggio had songs written about him, and was compared to Speaker and Mays. I can't believe there wasn't an edge there, although it may be small in the absolute sense.

There are two things we usually take into account in comparisons of this type. One is era, and Lynn has an undeniable advantage here, starting his career two generations later, in an integrated league.

But if you ask me this advantage is swamped by park effects: Lynn put up his big numbers in Fenway Park, possibly the ideal environment for a left-handed hitter such as himself. (There's a reason Lynn became a very ordinary player once he left the Red Sox.) DiMaggio played in a horrible environment for a right-handed power-hitter, pre-renovation Yankee Stadium. Put the two in a neutral field, in any era you want, and DiMaggio laps Lynn.

And that's no knock on Lynn, but comparing him (or almost anyone) to DiMaggio is just not doing them any favors.

[Cougar]

--Butler only had a 68% success rate for his career. His base stealing didn't help and probably hurt his teams. He was an ok fielder and hiiter for average whose only real plus skill was taking a walk. I'd be happy to have him on my team but he doesn't belong in a HoF discussion and he wasn't nearly as good as Lynn.

The breakeven for base stealing is usually figured to be about 2/3. Butler's right about there.

I'll accept the base-stealing breakeven to a point, but when a guy steals 558 career bases at that rate, I have to think something else is going on. Some manager would have put the red light on him if he wasn't taking good risks. If you want to debit him a bit for the poor percentage, fine, but it doesn't cancel out 550 SB entirely.

Also, from all reports, he was a good fielder, not an OK one. You don't get to play 2000 games in center if you're merely adequate. His fielding percentage is way above average and his range was very good. You might say he had only an OK arm, which kept him from being a great center fielder, but he was well above average.

Lynn's best seasons were better than Butler's, no question. But Butler was much, much more consistent. Lynn had a number of seasons -- the preponderance of his seasons, really -- where he hit like, more or less, a replacement-level #6 hitter. Butler was one of the very best leadoff men in the game for virtually his entire career.

So, you want the best career -- choose Butler. The best peak, choose Lynn. But Lynn's peak was very, very, very short!

Lynn wouldn't be the worst center fielder in the HOF. But Butler is a better candidate.

[mac195]

The breakeven for base stealing is usually figured to be about 2/3. Butler's right about there.

I'll accept the base-stealing breakeven to a point, but when a guy steals 558 career bases at that rate, I have to think something else is going on.

Likely what was going on was that stolen base attempts were exciting for the fans to watch, and leadoff hitters were expected to steal, especially in the pre-money-ball, pre-sabermetrics era that Butler played in. But we know now that at Butler's rate of success, he wasn't helping his team much by running. It's quite possible that Butler's manager didn't know this at the time.

[leecemark]

--I think SB have been overrated throughout history simply because they are exciting. Unless you are succeeding at a phenomenal rate like Henderson, Raines or Morgan than they are more style than substance. I suppose you could argue that the threat of stealing adds some value as distraction that can't (or at least isn't) measured in the current metrics. That would be the only way to justify giving much credit to a 68% guy like Butler.
--Maybe it was a slight exaggeration to say Lynn's best years were as good as DiMaggio's. However, even if you can't accept that claim, I think its fair to say that Lynn's peak is a match for anyone outside the Big Five and posssibly Griffey and Snider. Having seen a good deal of both Griffey and Lynn I can say I was more impressed by Lynn's total package. Griiffey stayed at/near his best at least twice as long aand is a first ballot Hall of Famer, while Lynn is a borderline (and unlikley) case. That said, you often read somebody (fortunately a minority of somebodies) asking if Griffey deserves the Hall of Fame due to his career being ruined by injury. If people can forget 10 years of greatness that most of us witnessed, then it isn't surprising that Lynn's 5 years of greatness two decades before is being forgotten as well.
--In the comparison between Lynn and Butler though the peaks are not even remotely comparable. Lynn not only won, but clearly deserved two MVP awards. He was the best player in the league twice and probably the best player in the league for the back half of the 70s. Butler was an above average CF for a long time, but never even an afterthought for best player consideration. He had one top 10 MVP finish (7th) and that came in his ONLY All Star season. Butler was a good player and a good man, but Lynn was a great player who Hall of Fame career was derailed by injury.

[Cougar]

--In the comparison between Lynn and Butler though the peaks are not even remotely comparable. Lynn not only won, but clearly deserved two MVP awards. He was the best player in the league twice and probably the best player in the league for the back half of the 70s. Butler was an above average CF for a long time, but never even an afterthought for best player consideration. He had one top 10 MVP finish (7th) and that came in his ONLY All Star season. Butler was a good player and a good man, but Lynn was a great player who Hall of Fame career was derailed by injury.

Lynn only won 1 MVP; Don Baylor won in 1979. Lynn finished fourth, behind Baylor, Ken Singleton, and George Brett. Fact is, 1979 was something of a boom year for offense in that era.

If you want to claim that Lynn should have won that year, maybe you've got a case -- Baylor was a poor choice who only won because he led the league in RBI and played for a division winner. The best player on the Angels was Bobby Grich, who probably would have gotten my vote that season. I would have given Lynn a lot of consideration, though.

Lynn basically split the 1979 Red Sox MVP vote with Jim Rice, who was almost as good as Lynn that year. And just as an aside, Rice was almost as good as Lynn during their 1975 rookie year when Lynn did win the MVP, they were about the same in 1976, and Rice was a lot better in 1977 and 1978. It seems that Rice may have a better claim to the "AL player of the half-decade" than Lynn does. Or maybe they're both Fenway creations.

(To save you the trouble of saying so, Lynn certainly had a major edge defensively on Rice, whose LF defense was average and who got a lot of AB as a DH .)

When you point to Butler's lack of All-Star games and MVP votes, I can only reiterate my oft-stated point that the skills of leadoff men are [I]always undervalued in those areas. That said, it's really true that Butler never had an MVP-type season; his HOF candidacy is based on being very good for a long time, not great for a short time. Lynn's case is obviously the reverse.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/butlebr01.shtml

OK, another aside -- look at the sponsor statement. "Surprising power"? Huh? Power is the one thing Butler absolutely, positively completely lacked as a ballplayer. The guy hit 54 HR in 17 seasons!

All I can figure is that the guy's looking at triples, but if you know anything about Butler, you know those are basically doubles down the line or in the gaps that Butler legged into triples with his speed and daring on the basepaths. Power, as we conventionally understand it, had nothing to do with it.

[Cougar]

--I think SB have been overrated throughout history simply because they are exciting. Unless you are succeeding at a phenomenal rate like Henderson, Raines or Morgan than they are more style than substance. I suppose you could argue that the threat of stealing adds some value as distraction that can't (or at least isn't) measured in the current metrics. That would be the only way to justify giving much credit to a 68% guy like Butler.

You're just talking rate. I'm not saying rates don't matter, I'm just saying counts do too.

It's like for pitchers -- do you want to look at wins or winning percentage? You want to consider both. For example, I've got to believe that 558 SB at a 68% rate is more impressive that 150 SB at an 80% rate. Bill James's concept of Fibonacci win points could easily be applied to stolen bases, at least for players for whom we have good "caught stealing" statistics.

Someone who's got an good baseball database, an Excel spreadsheet, and some time on his hands could put together a pretty revealing list.

[mac195]

I've got to believe that 558 SB at a 68% rate is more impressive that 150 SB at an 80% rate.

If 68% is the break even point, then even an infinite number of stolen bases would add exactly zero value.

[Cougar]

--Maybe it was a slight exaggeration to say Lynn's best years were as good as DiMaggio's. However, even if you can't accept that claim, I think its fair to say that Lynn's peak is a match for anyone outside the Big Five and posssibly Griffey and Snider. Having seen a good deal of both Griffey and Lynn I can say I was more impressed by Lynn's total package. Griiffey stayed at/near his best at least twice as long aand is a first ballot Hall of Famer, while Lynn is a borderline (and unlikley) case. That said, you often read somebody (fortunately a minority of somebodies) asking if Griffey deserves the Hall of Fame due to his career being ruined by injury. If people can forget 10 years of greatness that most of us witnessed, then it isn't surprising that Lynn's 5 years of greatness two decades before is being forgotten as well.


This is where you're running into problems. Lynn had two seasons that were HOF quality, '75 and '79. He had 4-6 more, depending on how generous you want to be, that, given his defense, were All-Star quality. (He actually made 9 ASG but a few of them are real head-scratchers [1980 jumps out] -- Lynn definitely got fan votes based on reputation and glamour rather than performance.)

A lot of guys had two MVP quality seasons. Roger Maris did. Jeff Burroughs did. Ted Kluzewski did. But if you didn't do enough in the seasons around those to construct a full HOF career, it's very hard to base a case on just two seasons. (Again, Maris may be the best example here.)

[Cougar]

If 68% is the break even point, then even an infinite number of stolen bases would add exactly zero value.

Yes, I get the math.

But the break even point is generally accepted to be (especially in Butler's pre-'roid era) two-thirds, or 66.7%.

Furthermore, this break-even point isn't a law of nature; it's a guideline. It's not like the temperature at which water boils, where it's set in stone -- there's some variance there. We are pretty sure Butler is near the break-even point. We know 80% success is good, we know 50% is bad. Butler's in a gray area.

(Indeed, the boiling point actually can vary too, based on altitude, among other things. Not that that's very relevant...)

[leecemark]

--But Maris, and Burroughs didn't deserve their MVP's and Klu didn't win (or deserve) any. None of those guys had has many good years as Lynn either. I not even arguing Lynn belongs, just that he is worthy of more consideration than he gets. The above 3 aren't even close IMO.
--Sure I given pitchers credit for raw wins, even more so than WP. However, I'm sure you aren't seriously suggesting that SB is of similar value to Wins as a basis for starting somebody's Hall arguement.
--If we're going to push somebody to the front of the line for sustained good performance, I'd suggest Reggie Smith. His peak was less than Lynn's, but much better than Butler's and he stayed at a higher level longer than Lynn.

[Cougar]

--But Maris, and Burroughs didn't deserve their MVP's and Klu didn't win (or deserve) any. None of those guys had has many good years as Lynn either. I not even arguing Lynn belongs, just that he is worthy of more consideration than he gets. The above 3 aren't even close IMO..

I said MVP quality, not MVP wins. 1979 was an MVP quality season for Lynn, whether he won or not. In a given year there might be 0-10 guys in a league that has that good a season; it just varies.

Jeez, you might think Mantle (or Cash, for that matter) deserved the MVP more than Maris in '61, but you must concede that Maris' season was of an MVP caliber.

--Sure I given pitchers credit for raw wins, even more so than WP. However, I'm sure you aren't seriously suggesting that SB is of similar value to Wins as a basis for starting somebody's Hall arguement.

Not as valuable as wins, but SB are valuable, yes. Not all by themselves are they enough for a Hall case (pace Vince Coleman), but they might well be the most salient argument for a player with other fine attributes. Think Lou Brock, Rickey, Raines, Max Carey.


--If we're going to push somebody to the front of the line for sustained good performance, I'd suggest Reggie Smith. His peak was less than Lynn's, but much better than Butler's and he stayed at a higher level longer than Lynn.


I like Smith, and he certainly had more power, (there are several hundred CF not in the Hall who had more power than Butler -- I concede the point), but he only played half his career in CF and he lags behind Butler in categories like hits and runs scored enough that I can't promote Smith ahead of Butler.

[leecemark]

--Well sure Maris 60 or 61 or even 62 seasons might have been the best year some seasons. 61 was his best though and I think Mantle and cash were clearly better than he was. You can make a case for several others as well. Maris was amoung the best players for a three year peak and a pretty good player a few other seasons. If he had been a CF, rather than a RF he would almost as good as Lynn. He wasn't though and he has a a fairly good block of Hall support while Lynn has almost none.

[leecemark]

--We are getting to the point in the BBF HoF project where non-Hall of Famers are about as prevelant on ballots as the remaining Hall of Famers. I'd thought it would be a good idea to revive this series to generate discussion on those players. The CF version was one of the best of the group, so here it is. The other positions will also be popping up soon.
--BTW, the best of the rest are also going to be relevant to the "Ranking the Legends" project if you want to drop by the History forum and join in that.

[538280]

My list of unenshrined CFers would go like this:

1.Jimmy Wynn
2.Cesar Cedeno
3.Dale Murphy
4.Fred Lynn
5.Amos Otis
6.Spot Poles
7.Wally Berger
8.Vada Pinson
9.George Van Haltren
10.Willie Davis

I'd say 1-3 belong in. Lynn I'm on the fence on and after that I don't think any of them deserve induction.

[leecemark]

--Love those Astros:cool: . I think the most deserving CFer may be a guy who didn't get mentioned the first time around on this thread, Paul Hines. He was a dominating player and good for a long time. The only problem with him is he played so long ago, in the formative years of the game, that its hard to say with any certainty how good he really was.
--The rest fall into one of two categories; great peak players whose career totals have not convinced the HoF voters and guys with great career totals who were never quite elite players. The peak candidates are Dale Murphy, Wally Berger and Freddy Lynn, with I suppose the Astros duo of Wynn and Cedeno in the mix. Of that group I prefer Murphy. The career guys are Andre Dawson, Vada Pinson and Al Oliver (and probably Van Haltren, although I'm unenthused about 2nd tier 19th century candidates). I like Dawson from this group.

[The Dude]

My top 10 CF's that are not yet in the BBF, Alphabetically:
Earl Averill
Brett Butler
Max Carey
Dom DiMaggio
Dale Murphy
Al Oliver
Vada Pinson
Edd Roush
Hack Wilson
Jimmy Wynn

I'm guessing nobody is going to agree with me on the Professor and Butler. I'm sure I've argued for them somewhere in this thread and probably will again at a later date, but it's late right now.

One little thing I will post tonight:
RAA First 10 Full Seasons (age Playing 10th season):
Blair: 131 (30)
Speaker: 117 (30)
Ashburn: 111 (30)
DiMaggio: 107 (35)
Mays: 67 (31)

[Cougar]

I'm guessing nobody is going to agree with me on the Professor and Butler. I'm sure I've argued for them somewhere in this thread and probably will again at a later date, but it's late right now.


Read back in the thread (it's lengthy, so pack a lunch first)...I'm with you on Dom D and Brett B.

[Cougar]

I led this thread off with my list of best eligible uninducted CF. That was 2 years ago -- here's a revision. I'm now including any retired player, relaxing the 5 year rule for these lists. Lots of explication for many of these picks in the old posts above:

The rest of the center fielders

My ranking of the top retired center fielders not enshrined.

1. Dale Murphy (Braves)
2. Vada Pinson (Reds)
3. Al Oliver (Pirates)
4. Dom DiMaggio (Red Sox)
5. Brett Butler (Dodgers)
6. Doc Cramer (Tigers)
7. Cy Williams (Phillies)
8.(t) George Van Haltren (New York Giants)
8.(t) Jimmy Ryan (Cubs)
10. Paul Hines (Providence Grays)
11. Wally Berger (Boston Braves)
12. Curt Flood (PLYR/PIONEER; Cardinals)
13. Cesar Cedeno (Astros)
14. Jimmy Wynn (Astros)
15. Dummy Hoy (Reds)
16. Fred Lynn (Red Sox)
17. Reggie Smith (Red Sox)
18. Eric Davis (Reds)
19. Marquis Grissom (Expos)
20. Amos Otis (Royals)
21. Roy Thomas (Phillies)
22. Willie McGee (Cardinals)
23. Willie Wilson (Royals)
24. Devon White (Blue Jays)

Notes.

a. I'd endorse, with steadily diminishing enthusiasm, the first dozen for the Hall. None would be outrages in Cooperstown. Arguments could be made for the rest; no one in the top 20 would entirely offend my HOF sensibilities.

b. Murphy is head and shoulders the class of this field. He is the only person who will be in the top half of the Hall when he is inducted.

c. Pinson, Oliver, Cramer -- 2700+ hits, among other achievements.

d. Dom DiMaggio receives extra credit for the war years costing him much of his prime.

e. Leadoff-hitting CF seem to be very overlooked. Several examples on this list, the most recent being Butler's quick bounce from the ballot.

f. Cy Williams was a four-time HR champion, two-time OPS champ.

g. Ryan and Van Haltren are so close it's amazing. Both 2500+ hits, .300+ BA.

h. Paul Hines won a Triple Crown and had a ton of Black and Gray Ink.

j. Berger led league in HR and RBI while playing for a 115-loss team, 61.5 games out of first.

k. Flood is where he is because of his role as a pioneer/contributor who also happened to be an All-Star caliber player.

l. Cedeno and Wynn are nearest misses. Astrodome made it hard on them. They both did everything well.

m. Hoy got 2000 hits and stole nearly 600 bases (under 19th century rules, granted) -- and he was deaf.

n. Lynn had two extraordinary seasons in 1975 and 1979; the remaining seasons, he was just a good player.

o. Smith could be listed as easily in RF.

p. Roy Thomas had an almost laughable lack of power, but he was a superb fielder & baserunner, a consistent slap hitter, and an outstanding on-base man (.413 career OBP). Stats deeply depressed by his era (1899-1911) and by late start in the majors (age 25). Ivy Leaguer from U. of Penn.; he coached his alma mater from 1909-1919 to a .632 winning percentage. His habit of bunting pitches foul to draw walks forced a rule change making foul balls count as first and second strikes.

q. Eric Davis – what if? Had unbelievable tools. Still led a team to a WS win, and fashioned a creditable career.

r. McGee had a magic year in 1985, winning the MVP on a pennant winner and leading the league in BA, hits, singles, and triples, while stealing 56 bases and winning a Gold Glove. He won another batting title, three gold gloves, and made four all-star teams. Basically a slap hitter with a great glove, but finished with 2254 hits and a .295 career BA. According to James’s similarity scores, similar to nobody.

s. Wilson, over various seasons, led the league in BA, hits, runs, stolen bases, and at-bats. He led the AL five times in triples.

t. Devon White – great, great glove, long career, compiled some decent offensive stats for his career (2000 hits, 200 HR), and was a better basestealer than anyone remembers (346 at 77%), but never had a season offensively that made one sit up and pay attention, mostly because of simply horrendous strike zone judgment. Still, manned CF for 3 WS winners.

u. Last addition was Marquis Grissom, who I think is criminally underappreciated. A gold glover in CF in his 20's, and solid until the end defensively. Stole lots of bases; hit for decent power; usually a good BA. Amassed impressive career totals overall. Peak seasons all came early in his career toiling in obscurity in Montreal, so no one remembers -- and then he hung around past his prime for a long time hopscotching teams, creating a journeyman impression. He was anything but that.

v. Otis did utterly everything well, and I find him rather similar to Grissom in career value; lower peak, but he held it longer.

w. Kenny Lofton, Steve Finley, Bernie Williams, and Jim Edmonds will be in this group somewhere when they retire. Junior Griffey will go right to the top.

[The Dude]

Dom DiMaggio isn't the greatest DiMaggio of them all. But when your brother is one of the top 25 players of all time, that's a lot of ground to make up.

Dom like Joe missed crucial years to World War II. However, unlike Joe, Dom was just entering his Peak years while Joe was in the middle. By the time Dom got back from war, he was near the middle to the end of his peak.

I've seen some statements about Dom facing a weak league. Yes, it's true that he played part of his career before intergration. It's all true that all of his black ink comes from 1950 and 1951, when he played in an intergrated league against the likes of Minnie Minoso and Larry Doby.

Dom hit .298 for his career, but his OBP was .383. He was perenially the best lead off hitter in his league and is one of three players to average over 100 runs a season for their career. He led his league twice in runs, and once each in triples and stolen bases.

Does all this make Dom a hall of famer?

No. But when you take into account that Dom DiMaggio was arguably one of the top five defensive center fielders of all time, I believe he has a good arguement to be in there. As I showed in that last post, Dom was one of the best through his career and saved over 100 runs more than the average CFer during his career. If you also notice his 10th season came during the donwturn of most CFers career, and the guys ahead of him had comparable seasons at age 36.

If you give him credit for the years he missed for war, he is great candidate IMHO. Joe Gordon is a popular candidate around here for the BBFHoF. I'm not going to say Dom DiMaggio is as good as Joe Gordon. But I will say that DiMaggio is a good candidate for our BBFHoF. We give credit to Gordon, Doerr, Williams, Feller, and J.DiMaggio. I believe Dom was good enough in his career to to warrant an election, with war-time benefit.

[Cougar]

I'll cop to it...I have no idea who Spot Poles is. B-R.com doesn't list him. Negro Leagues?

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'll cop to it...I have no idea who Spot Poles is. B-R.com doesn't list him. Negro Leagues?
The "Black Ty Cobb".

[Cougar]

The "Black Ty Cobb".

Well, if that's so, he's among the top 5-6 CF ever. :)

I'll defer to people who know early 20th Century Negro Leagues stuff. I just don't.

538K (I'm rounding) brought him up and says he doesn't make the cut. I believe him, at least until somebody tries to convince me otherwise.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Well, if that's so, he's among the top 5-6 CF ever. :)

I'll defer to people who know early 20th Century Negro Leagues stuff. I just don't.

538K (I'm rounding) brought him up and says he doesn't make the cut. I believe him, at least until somebody tries to convince me otherwise.
Poles was one of the Negro League finalists in this year's special election who missed. I don't know too much about him, myself, except he played in the early part of the century.
Nicknames are only nicknames. The Black Joe DiMaggio, Wild Bill Wright, has yet to make anyone's list here who has researched the subject.

[Cougar]

Where have you gone, Wild Bill Wright?

[leecemark]

--Cougar, still love that Doc Cramer huh. I don't really get that. Cramer is a poor man's Lloyd Waner and Waner is one of the Hall's worst selections. Or to put it another way, take Kenny Lofton and subtract most of his walks and stolen bases and you've got Doc Cramer.
--My list;
1) Dale Murphy - at least we agree at the top
2) Andre Dawson - I assume you must have him in RF, but he played more than enough CF to rank here
3) Paul Hines - great player of the (18)70s and 80s
---this is as far as I absolutely support for the Hall
4) Fred Lynn - if only he hadn't been so breakable he'd head this list
5) Wally Berger - short, but sweet
6) Cy Williams - if he'd started 10 years later...
7) Vada Pinson - neither peak nor career quite does it for me, but the combo is intriguing
8) Al Oliver - if I could be convinced he was at least average defensively he could jump a few spots
9) Spot Poles - I don't think he was Cobb like, but he was apparently pretty good
10) Jimmy Wynn - he has actually slipped a little for me due to some over the top campaigning for him
---this is as far as I'd even consider
11) Willie McGee
12) George Van Haltren
13) Jimmy Ryan
14) Reggie Smith
15) Willie Wilson
16) Amos Otis
17) Cesar Cedeno
18) Curt Flood
19) Dom DiMaggio
20) Brett Butler

16)

[Cougar]

I do have Dawson in RF, although I've been meaning to move him. I'd always thought he was better classified as a CF, anyway, but I followed general convention and put him in RF. Lately, I've seen some articles (which I can't cite off the top of my head) that gave succor to my original impression.

I'd probably rate Dawson slightly above Murphy, depending on my mood, but they both clearly exceed the HOF bar, in my opinion.

And no, I'm not giving an inch on Cramer. .296 BA, 2705 hits, and the best defensive CF between Speaker and the DiMaggios.

I'm surprised at how high you rate Willie McGee. OK, he won a Zoilo Versalles-esque MVP and was a pretty good basestealer, but his rate stats look a lot like -- heavens to Betsy -- Doc Cramer's.

Granted, McGee gets a bump on era adjustment, but Doc had 1500 more AB and 450 more hits. Plus Doc was most probably a superior defender (although across time this is hard to know for sure; McGee was quite good himself).

[RuthMayBond]

I do have Dawson in RF, although I've been meaning to move him. I'd always thought he was better classified as a CF, anyway, but I followed general convention and put him in RF. Lately, I've seen some articles (which I can't cite off the top of my head) that gave succor to my original impression.

I'd probably rate Dawson slightly above Murphy, depending on my mood, but they both clearly exceed the HOF bar, in my opinion.

And no, I'm not giving an inch on Cramer. .296 BA, 2705 hits, and the best defensive CF between Speaker and the DiMaggios.

I'm surprised at how high you rate Willie McGee. OK, he won a Zoilo Versalles-esque MVP and was a pretty good basestealer, but his rate stats look a lot like -- heavens to Betsy -- Doc Cramer's.

Granted, McGee gets a bump on era adjustment, but Doc had 1500 more AB and 450 more hits. Plus Doc was most probably a superior defender (although across time this is hard to know for sure; McGee was quite good himself).I wonder what Matt found. It looks like McGee may have had a slightly better defensive career overall but Cramer had a better peak

[538280]

--Love those Astros:cool: . I think the most deserving CFer may be a guy who didn't get mentioned the first time around on this thread, Paul Hines. He was a dominating player and good for a long time. The only problem with him is he played so long ago, in the formative years of the game, that its hard to say with any certainty how good he really was.

I actually forgot completely about Hines. He was a great player and a dominant player in the formative years of the NL. I actually hadn't even heard of him until some people starting campaigning for him for the BBFHOF, and I've since read a little on him and took a look at his statistics. You're probably right on him being a HOFer, though I don't know if he'd rate as one of my top 20 CFers of all time. For the HOF I think it is important that we try to elect dominant players from every era, but I do generally think stronger leagues make stronger players so I put players from stronger leagues higher in my rankings.

Astros-Don't worry, Mark, I haven't started on Bob Watson yet. ;)

--The rest fall into one of two categories; great peak players whose career totals have not convinced the HoF voters and guys with great career totals who were never quite elite players. The peak candidates are Dale Murphy, Wally Berger and Freddy Lynn, with I suppose the Astros duo of Wynn and Cedeno in the mix. Of that group I prefer Murphy. The career guys are Andre Dawson, Vada Pinson and Al Oliver (and probably Van Haltren, although I'm unenthused about 2nd tier 19th century candidates). I like Dawson from this group.

I see Dawson as not really a great player, just lasting a long time. His peak is nothing, and the Cubs part of his career he really wasn't worth all that much (though he did really pad his counting stats). I don't think there's anything special about him. A lot like Vada Pinson, even though he did have more good years. Vada was better at his peak though, so they'd be about even for me-and short of the HOF.

I'd rank the all of the peak guys you mention, except maybe Berger, ahead of Dawson.

I generally consider Dawson a RFer though instead of CF, mostly because most others do, but it probably does make more sense to list him as a CFer now that I look at it.

[538280]

I do have Dawson in RF, although I've been meaning to move him. I'd always thought he was better classified as a CF, anyway, but I followed general convention and put him in RF. Lately, I've seen some articles (which I can't cite off the top of my head) that gave succor to my original impression.

I'd probably rate Dawson slightly above Murphy, depending on my mood, but they both clearly exceed the HOF bar, in my opinion.

And no, I'm not giving an inch on Cramer. .296 BA, 2705 hits, and the best defensive CF between Speaker and the DiMaggios.

I'm surprised at how high you rate Willie McGee. OK, he won a Zoilo Versalles-esque MVP and was a pretty good basestealer, but his rate stats look a lot like -- heavens to Betsy -- Doc Cramer's.

Granted, McGee gets a bump on era adjustment, but Doc had 1500 more AB and 450 more hits. Plus Doc was most probably a superior defender (although across time this is hard to know for sure; McGee was quite good himself).

Whoa, whoa, whoa here. Doc Cramer for the HOF? Are you aware his offensive winning percentage is one of the lowest of all time among OFers with a long career? It's in the New Bill James Historical Abstract, I think there are only a few worse than him. Cramer was about as close to an offensive zero as you can be while hitting .300. He did it in a high offensive era (his .296 average really is only 4.6% better than league), never drew a walk and had no power. How on earth could you have him ahead of Wynn, Cedeno, and even Berger/McGee? Sure, his rate stats are similar to McGee, but look at their relative stats:

...............BA.... OBP....SLG
Cramer.....105.....95......92
McGee.....112.....101....100

I would agree that they're similar, but McGee is clearly the better hitter. Cramer was a good fielder, but even with an A+ DWS grade he still rates as the lowest in WS/162 games among CFers in the NBJHBA. James entitles the worst players to have 2000 game careers "the Doc Cramer all stars" and he can barely make his top 100 because he was horrible per game and his peak was really nothing.

[Cougar]

I venerate Bill James as much as the next guy, and point taken on the rate stats. But I disagree on Cramer. Career stats are meaningful.

Actually, the same goes for Dawson.

[538280]

I venerate Bill James as much as the next guy, and point taken on the rate stats. But I disagree on Cramer. Career stats are meaningful.


So, even if you're a horrible hitter, if you can last a long time and put up some good hit totals (which is basically all Cramer could do fairly well), you can be a HOFer? I finally found the list, Cramer is dead last among all OFers rated in the NBJHBA in offensive winning percentage. The bottom 5 go like this:

1.Doc Cramer .465
2.Tony Armas .474
3.Jimmy Piersall .476
4.Bill Virdon .481
5.Paul Blair .495

And really the only reason Cramer put up those great hit numbers was because of the era (and parks) he played in, which was the best ever for batting averages. Applying Cramer's rel BA to McGee's era, that would translate into a .275 BA, which in 9140 ABs would be 2514 hits. Really, the only thing Cramer has going for him (his career hit total) is completely a function of time and place.

Defense.....Well, Cramer was a great defensive outfielder. So was Devon White, who has an offensive winning percentage about 50 points higher, was even better in the field, and lasted almost as long. Anyone supporting Devon White for the HOF would get laughed off this site, and really he was a better player than Cramer.

[SABR Matt]

Interesting...of the players eligible for HOF enshrinement who are not yet in...the PCA/GI method currently being used by me suggests this order:

1 - Cesar Cedeno
2 - Jimmie Wynn
3 - Brett Butler
4 - Tommy Leach
5 - Dale Murphy
6 - Fred Lynn
7 - Cy Seymour
8 - Jimmy Ryan
9 - Mike Griffin
10- Amos Otis

[538280]

Interesting...of the players eligible for HOF enshrinement who are not yet in...the PCA/GI method currently being used by me suggests this order:

1 - Cesar Cedeno
2 - Jimmie Wynn


Wow, Matt, maybe my famous "Astro bias" really is nonexistent. I always thought both Wynn and to a lesser extent Cedeno really are for sure HOF caliber, and I'm extremely glad to see you agree.

BTW, how does your system view Jose Cruz? I know Micheal Humphreys has come up with his own system that showed Cruz to be a HOF caliber player, but does your system like him?

[SABR Matt]

Jose Cruz is ranked 20th among left fielders...here's that list:
First Last HOF Ps Ps-Rk OVERALL
Barry Bonds A LF 1 805.18
Ted Williams Y LF 2 761.8
Rickey Henderson A LF 3 755.35
Stan Musial Y LF 4 710.39
Carl Yastrzemski Y LF 5 505.18
Ed Delahanty Y LF 6 500.32
Tim Raines N LF 7 443.34
Pete Rose N LF 8 435.65
Sherry Magee N LF 9 429.57
Fred Clarke Y LF 10 428.4
Willie Stargell Y LF 11 427.63
Al Simmons Y LF 12 420.55
Goose Goslin Y LF 13 418.44
Joe Jackson N LF 14 416.69
Jesse Burkett Y LF 15 412.85
Joe Kelley Y LF 16 403.93
Jimmy Sheckard N LF 17 398.21
Billy Williams Y LF 18 388.59
Zack Wheat Y LF 19 382.77
Jose Cruz N LF 20 378.34

I would characterize him as a borderline candidate for the hall...there are better left fielders who are not in the hall (Tim Raines, Sherry Magee and Jimmie Sheckard...ignore Rose and Jackson who are inelligible for the moment...and assume that Rickey won't have to wait much longer for Rickey to be in the HOF...afterall Rickey don't like it when Rickey isn't appreciated)...but then again there are a smattering of left fielders who are in the hall with weaker creds than SyraCruz.

Joe Medwick, Lou Brock, Ralph Kiner, Chick Hafey, Heinie Manush, Jim O'Rourke and Buck Ewing...though Ewing owes his selection to having caught some games before his body decided to fall apart.

He's in that that "meh" region. Certainly the biggest left field snub at this point is Tim Raines.

[Cougar]

Calling Cramer a horrible hitter is absurd. He was a good hitter, and a great fielder, for a long time. The HOF honors players who are very good over long careers. Playing 20 years in the majors is hard enough, especially pre-WWII when medical techniques were practically barbaric by today's standards, and players had to have off-season job to pay the bills. To play 20 years at a high level is the type of thing we associate with HOFers and near-HOFers.

Yes, he played in a good hitting era, a paleo-Steroid era, if you will. But that doesn't mean he didn't get the hits.


So, even if you're a horrible hitter, if you can last a long time and put up some good hit totals (which is basically all Cramer could do fairly well), you can be a HOFer? I finally found the list, Cramer is dead last among all OFers rated in the NBJHBA in offensive winning percentage. The bottom 5 go like this:

1.Doc Cramer .465
2.Tony Armas .474
3.Jimmy Piersall .476
4.Bill Virdon .481
5.Paul Blair .495

And really the only reason Cramer put up those great hit numbers was because of the era (and parks) he played in, which was the best ever for batting averages. Applying Cramer's rel BA to McGee's era, that would translate into a .275 BA, which in 9140 ABs would be 2514 hits. Really, the only thing Cramer has going for him (his career hit total) is completely a function of time and place.

Defense.....Well, Cramer was a great defensive outfielder. So was Devon White, who has an offensive winning percentage about 50 points higher, was even better in the field, and lasted almost as long. Anyone supporting Devon White for the HOF would get laughed off this site, and really he was a better player than Cramer.

[Cougar]

Certainly the biggest left field snub at this point is Tim Raines.

Raines hasn't been retired long enough to be eligible, so it's hard to say he's been snubbed (yet).

[538280]

He's in that that "meh" region. Certainly the biggest left field snub at this point is Tim Raines.

I have Cruz in about the same spot that you do, Humphreys I believe has him a little higher. I thought it was unreasonable that I basically got laughed at when I brought him up as a HOF candidate.

Anyway, Tim Raines isn't eligible, but if he wasn't elected (which there's a good chance he won't) he would be the best player outside the Hall, even more so than Ron Santo and Dick Allen IMO. I have Raines 39th, and think he is extremely underrated even here at BBF. Where do you have him?

[SABR Matt]

Hmm...I'm not seeing Cramer is a particularly good hitter here.

He's only got 117 offensive GI points (details on the PCA/GI method can be found elsewhere on this site in older threads) over a 20 year career...that ain't good. He does rate as an outstanding fielder, managing just over 100 defensive GI points which causes him to finish in 117th place on the CF GI leaderboard (out of 230 qualifying CFers)...

Not really seeing your case.

[538280]

Calling Cramer a horrible hitter is absurd. He was a good hitter, and a great fielder, for a long time. The HOF honors players who are very good over long careers. Playing 20 years in the majors is hard enough, especially pre-WWII when medical techniques were practically barbaric by today's standards, and players had to have off-season job to pay the bills. To play 20 years at a high level is the type of thing we associate with HOFers and near-HOFers.

I'm sick of hearing the argument it was harder to play longer in the early days. Through my observations, and I even did a mini-study on it a long time ago, that is just flatly untrue. There are just as many players in early baseball who had long careers as there are in modern baseball.

Cramer was a horrible hitter, probably the worst hitting OFer to have a long career. His offensive winning percentage was .465, which means he was considerably below average. Devon White's OWP was .510, and he was just as good defensively and lasted almost as long, why don't I see you stumping for him?

Yes, he played in a good hitting era, a paleo-Steroid era, if you will. But that doesn't mean he didn't get the hits.

He did get the hits, but the league average was .283. Like I said, if we multiply his rel. BA by the league average in McGee's era (.263) then we have a .275 hitter. I don't think you'd be supporting a .275 hitter, and of course Cramer had no power and never walked.

He was a horrible hitter, all he could do was hit for a pretty good average, 5% above league. Other than that he did nothing well on offense. He was a good defensive CFer, but so were hundreds of players who no one ever thought of as HOFers, like Paul Blair, Bill Virdon, Jimmy McAleer, and Devon White.

Like I said, Devon White is the better player. I can't understand for the life of me how anyone could possibly think Cramer is within a mile of the HOF. I'm sorry, Cougar, but you're just not making the proper era adjustments or realizing what really puts runs on the scoreboard. Jimmy Wynn was twice the player Cramer was, no exaggeration.

[SABR Matt]

Non-HOFers who top the GI leaderboard overall.
First Last HOF Ps O-Rk OVERALL
Barry Bonds A LF 3 805.18
Rickey Henderson A LF 5 755.35
Frank Thomas A 1B 21 523.42
Mike Piazza A C 33 466.3
Mark McGwire N 1B 34 464.43
John Ward N SS 37 460.36
Tim Raines N LF 47 443.34
Roger Clemens A SP 48 440.88
Dick Allen N 1B 49 440.32
Pete Rose N LF 52 435.65
Ivan Rodriguez A C 54 435.15
Larry Walker A RF 58 432.43
Sherry Magee N LF 60 429.57
Gary Sheffield A RF 65 421.45
Jeff Bagwell A 1B 66 421.32
Rafael Palmeiro A 1B 68 419.8
Joe Jackson N LF 71 416.69
Bobby Grich N 2B 73 413.91
Harry Stovey N 1B 78 408.59
Reggie Smith N RF 80 407.77
Ken Griffey Jr. A CF 82 404.92
Jimmy Sheckard N LF 89 398.21
Cesar Cedeno N CF 90 397.22
Edgar Martinez A 3B 91 397.21
Todd Helton A 1B 93 396.54
Sammy Sosa A RF 95 393.45
Jason Giambi A 1B 97 392.01
Jimmy Wynn N CF 98 392.01
Alex Rodriguez A SS 99 391.91
Andre Dawson N RF 100 390.1
Brett Butler N CF 101 389.76
Lou Whitaker N 2B 102 389.31
Tommy Leach N CF 104 386.6
Ted Simmons N C 105 386.18
Fred McGriff A 1B 106 385.04
Will Clark N 1B 107 384.32
Jim Thome A 1B 110 383.39
Dale Murphy N CF 111 383.02
Fred Lynn N CF 113 382.7
Roberto Alomar A 2B 114 382.42
Cy Seymour N CF 115 382.36
Gene Tenace N C 118 380.03
Jose Cruz N LF 120 378.34
Norm Cash N 1B 125 376.85
Greg Maddux A SP 127 375.39
Keith Hernandez N 1B 128 374.35
Joe Torre N C 129 374.04
Jack Clark N RF 130 373.85
Barry Larkin A SS 131 373.07
Dwight Evans N RF 132 372.93

[leecemark]

--I think its an overstatement to call Cramer a terrible hitter. He was pretty good at putting the bat on the ball, even if he didn't do that much damage with his contact. The problem I have with Cramer is that almost all his offensive value was in his BA and he wasn't even close to an elite hitter for average. Cramer only made the top 10 in BA twice and one of those was during WWII.
--Cramer led the league in AB 7 times (and was 2nd once), but only once in hits. He led off his entire career for good offensive teams and was always swinging, rather than taking the occassion walk so he should (and does) have lots of hits. He wasn't a great - or even very good - hitter though.

[SABR Matt]

Cramer was...well I compare him to (in the modern world) someone like jose Reyes...only not as fast.

Oodles and boodles of singles, no walks, almost no power, and too many strikeouts for his era and his spot in the batting order.

[Cougar]

I'm sick of hearing the argument it was harder to play longer in the early days. Through my observations, and I even did a mini-study on it a long time ago, that is just flatly untrue. There are just as many players in early baseball who had long careers as there are in modern baseball.

Cramer was a horrible hitter, probably the worst hitting OFer to have a long career. His offensive winning percentage was .465, which means he was considerably below average. Devon White's OWP was .510, and he was just as good defensively and lasted almost as long, why don't I see you stumping for him?

He did get the hits, but the league average was .283. Like I said, if we multiply his rel. BA by the league average in McGee's era (.263) then we have a .275 hitter. I don't think you'd be supporting a .275 hitter, and of course Cramer had no power and never walked.

He was a horrible hitter, all he could do was hit for a pretty good average, 5% above league. Other than that he did nothing well on offense. He was a good defensive CFer, but so were hundreds of players who no one ever thought of as HOFers, like Paul Blair, Bill Virdon, Jimmy McAleer, and Devon White.

Like I said, Devon White is the better player. I can't understand for the life of me how anyone could possibly think Cramer is within a mile of the HOF. I'm sorry, Cougar, but you're just not making the proper era adjustments or realizing what really puts runs on the scoreboard. Jimmy Wynn was twice the player Cramer was, no exaggeration.

Mostly, you're repeating yourself. And I don't appreciate the condescension.

I'm not really stumping for Cramer, per se; I can fully appreciate why someone wouldn't think he's a HOFer. Mostly, I'm just defending him from attacks that border on derision. For example, I think it's outrageous to call a guy with 2700 hits and a .296 BA horrible.

The sabremetric measures you're citing place enormous weight on walks and HR, the two strongest points in Wynn's game and the two weakest in Cramer's. So of course he looks bad.

For 15 seasons or so Cramer played an important defensive position at a all-time level of proficiency, and gave his team 190 hits a year or so. That's value. If it was so easy, lots of players would do it. Longevity and consistency is the key to the argument.

[Cougar]

Cramer was...well I compare him to (in the modern world) someone like jose Reyes...only not as fast.

Oodles and boodles of singles, no walks, almost no power, and too many strikeouts for his era and his spot in the batting order.

Too many K's??? His career high in K's is 35 in one season. He had 345 in his whole career! I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I'm guessing Cramer's among the top 50 or so toughest guys to strike out in baseball history.

[Cougar]

--I think its an overstatement to call Cramer a terrible hitter. He was pretty good at putting the bat on the ball, even if he didn't do that much damage with his contact. The problem I have with Cramer is that almost all his offensive value was in his BA and he wasn't even close to an elite hitter for average. Cramer only made the top 10 in BA twice and one of those was during WWII.
--Cramer led the league in AB 7 times (and was 2nd once), but only once in hits. He led off his entire career for good offensive teams and was always swinging, rather than taking the occassion walk so he should (and does) have lots of hits. He wasn't a great - or even very good - hitter though.

This is a fair, measured criticism, and I don't take issue with it. I think he probably was a very good hitter in his best seasons, but for his career as a whole, "good" is a better adjective than "very good". But, again, he was good for quite a long time. The war probably helped extend his career, granted.

[SABR Matt]

Cramer played in an era when striking out was uncommon. Though I do agree it's overstating it to say he had too many strikeouts...let's just say he didn't make contact quite as well as you'd like from a lead-off hitter who's only skill was making contact.

[leecemark]

--You're a hard man to please Matt. Cramer struck out only 345 times in over 9,000 AB. He lead the lead in fewest K per AB 4 times and was top 10 12 times. Maybe he wasn't Joe Sewell, but he was the next best thing.

[SABR Matt]

Hmm...I remembered differently about the common K-rates in that era...odd.

I still don't think he's what you'd want in a lead-off hitter in any era. His batting averages are exclusively a function of the standard rate at which balls in play become hits since his career was almost exclusively told in balls in play. Anyone who can put the ball in play like a major league baseball player can...can hit like Cramer hit.

[leecemark]

--I agree he isn't my kind of leadoff man. Not sure he fits really well anywhere in the order, since his OBP is low for the top and his power is non-existent for the middle. If you can afford a good glove, singles hitter in the back half (assuming some good hitting middle IF) then he is helpfull.

[SABR Matt]

A light hitting gold glove calibar center fielder has his value hitting 8th or 9th (I'd hit him 9th...behind the pitcher spot) as a bit of an igniter in front of the real hitters...

That's about all I'd do with him.

[Cougar]

You'd hit a .300 hitter behind the pitcher? :laugh

[SABR Matt]

If you understood anything about maximizing line-up construction...you'd know why I chose to do that.

It is not at all a bad idea to bat the pitcher 8th to separate him from your best hitters who happen to bat 1-4 in good line-ups...this is done to (a) get your best hitters more plate appearances and (b) prevent the pitcher from killing rallies that could ultimately lead to your best hitters batting with more men on base.

I'd hit Cramer 9th so as to have a quasi-productive hitter hitting before the lead-off man which would give me the ability to generate more PA for my good hitters and more baserunners too.

[538280]

Mostly, you're repeating yourself. And I don't appreciate the condescension.

I'm not really stumping for Cramer, per se; I can fully appreciate why someone wouldn't think he's a HOFer. Mostly, I'm just defending him from attacks that border on derision. For example, I think it's outrageous to call a guy with 2700 hits and a .296 BA horrible.

The sabremetric measures you're citing place enormous weight on walks and HR, the two strongest points in Wynn's game and the two weakest in Cramer's. So of course he looks bad.

That's one of the biggest myths about sabermetric offensive evaluation. It doesn't put too much weight on walks/HRs, it puts the right amont of weight on them, based on how those things correlate to runs scored. OWP does not overrate Jimmy Wynn. It gives a good idea of how good he was offensively. OWP does not underrate Doc Cramer, it gives a good idea of how good he was offensively. Sabermetrics do not underrate singles hitting, they make the correct assumption that a guy with a low BA and lots of power and walks is better than a guy with a high BA and no power/walks.

For 15 seasons or so Cramer played an important defensive position at a all-time level of proficiency, and gave his team 190 hits a year or so. That's value. If it was so easy, lots of players would do it. Longevity and consistency is the key to the argument.

190 hits doesn't necessarily equal value, if you can't do anything else on offense, and 190 hits in the 1930s just isn't overly impressive.