Cecil Cooper?

[The Dude]

Career .298/.337/.466.
241 HR
1,125 RBI's
2,192 hits
1,012 Runs
415 Doubles
100+ RBI's 4 times
2 seasons of 200+ Hits, 30+ HR's, and 100+ RBI's.
5-Time All Star
2 Time GG winner
Led league twice in Doubles and HR's
Top 5 in hits 4 times
Top 10 in HR's 3 times
Top 5 in BA 3 times
Top 10 in OPS+ 4 times

[julusnc]

Cooper (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/players/player.php?p=coopece01) is just an ALL-Star not a Hall of Famer.

Just like the man the Red Sox traded Cooper for is just an ALL-Star.

Brewers traded George Scott for Cecil cooper to the Red Sox:(

[leecemark]

Cooper is a little short of the line for me, but he has a better case than Buckner and there is a thread trying to drum up support for him. He doesn't have as good a case as Allen or Mattingly or Clark or Hernandez or Cash or Hodges and several more coming up for consideration over the next few years. I'd say his chances are pretty slim.

[Cougar]

Cooper really belongs in the Will Clark/Mattingly/Hernandez/Garvey cluster of 1b, and since I think the people in that group makes the cut, Cooper does as well, for me.

He was a low visibility player in Milwaukee during his prime, but he was really every bit as good as those other players. His low OBP hurts him -- he would have been better to walk more.

I've no illusions that he's going to get in any time soon -- there's a logjam at 1b, and it's going to get worse before it gets better -- but I'm with Dudecar.

By the way, you meant he led the league twice in doubles and RBI, right? Plus, he led in total bases in 1980, when Cooper had an absolutely gonzo season that was totally overshadowed by Brett's run at .400.

[Brad Harris]

Wow.

Glad to see Cooper isn't totally forgotten in the discussion, at least.

Personally, I agree that he belongs in the Clark/Mattingly/Garvey class of first basemen who aren't in.

I'm very reluctant, however, to elect en masse that group and I'd rather shift through it one player at a time looking for a reason that Cooper might stand out above these other guys.

At this moment in time, I can't see it. So I would say that, at best, Cooper is in a dog fight for the title of "best first baseman who doesn't belong in the Hall."

[dgarza]

Cooper seemed to take a few years to "warm up" to the big leagues, which probably "hurt" him a bit for HOF consideration, but once he got to out of Boston, he hit stride. He also knew when to call it quits, instead of hanging on for way too many years, which might have "hurt" his number too, but is really more respectable.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I wouldn't endorse him for the HOF, but he most certainly deserved a better fate than zero votes when he was on the actual ballot. That always has puzzled me.

[leecemark]

I think Cooper called it quits because he had reached a point where nobody would pay him to play anymore. His numbers his last two seasons were 258/312/373 and 248/296/372.
At his peak Cooper was a very good firstbaseman. If he had gotten started a little earlier he would have a reasonable case. I think of him as an Al Oliver type player, but Oliver played 500 more games and still ended up with slightly better percentages. Oliver also gets extra credit for playing CF, even though he didn't play center as well as Cooper played first. I know it is streching it a bit to bring Oliver into the discussion, but he did play six seasons at first and was a similar yet better player than Cooper. If you look at Cooper's numbers in isolation he doesn't seem really out of place in a Hall of Fame discussion. When you start looking at all the players better than him not in the Hall, his cases starts looking awfully weak.

[Brad Harris]

Cooper's career numbers compared to league average:

BA - +13%
OBP - +3%
SLG - +18%
OPS* - 21%

* indicates this figure is adjusted for park factors.

You know, there aren't that many players with an OPS+ of 121 who came to bat almost 8,000 times and who aren't in the Hall of Fame.

A lineup with 9 Cecil Coopers could expect to put up 5.8 runs per game on the board.

[dgarza]

Originally posted by Chancellor
You know, there aren't that many players with an OPS+ of 121 who came to bat almost 8,000 times and who aren't in the Hall of Fame.


Not but Will Clark, Keith Hernandez, Don Mattingly, Gil Hodges, George Foster, Willie Horton, Jose Canseco, Dwight Evans, Dave Parker, Harold Baines, Jim Rice, Reggie Smith, Bobby Bonds, Dale Murphy, Ken Singleton, Rusty Staub, Al Oliver, Tim Raines, Chili Davis, Bob Elliot, Sherry Magee, Joe Torre, Ed Konetchy, Hal McRae, Ron Santo, Jimmy Ryan, ... please tell me when to stop..I know, some of these guys are not eligable yet, but...



and I have a hard time seeing 7349 ABs as almost 8,000, so I'm including those with 7000-7500+ ABs and OPS+ of 120 plus.

[leecemark]

Baseballreference.com lists the top 100 in OPS+ based on 3,000 AB. Number 100 is at 136 or 15% better than Cooper. Of course, that is more than a little unfair to Cooper since he had well over twice the number of AB required to make the list. 32 of the top 100 are not in the Hall of Fame, but of those only Will Clark (138), Sherry Magee (137 ) and Reggie Smith (136) could match Coopers 7,000 + AB. Frank Howard (142), Harry Stovey (143), Norm Cash (139), Bob Johnson (138) and Jack Clark (137) had over 6,000. Using AB short changes Cash and Clark because they walked over twice as much as Cooper and both actually played in more games. Howard also walked much more than Cooper and played in about the same number of games.
There is a pretty big gap between Cooper and number 100. I'd guess at least 100 more guys would be ahead of him. Mattingly played about the same number of games and had a 6% higher ops. I was pleased to see that my early comment that he was very similar to Al Oliver as a hitter was proved correct by this measure. They have exactly the same OPS+ and Oliver had over 1,000 more AB.
What I learned from this bit of work was 1) I am way underrating Will Clark, 2) everyone is underrating Norm Cash and Reggie Smith, 3) the Sherry Magee fan club is absolutely right (although I was at least partly onboard before) and 4) Cecil Cooper is further than ever from being on my Hall of Fame radar.
Frank Howard, Harry Stovey, Bob Johnson and Jack Clark fared well too, but I can only upgrade so many at a time.

[BoSox Rule]

Some people need to stop making threads about people going into the hall (who have no business being) there just to look smart.

[dgarza]

Originally posted by leecemark
everyone is underrating Norm Cash and Reggie Smith,

Reggie Smith more so...

Ken Singleton suprisingly makes the list, too.

[dgarza]

Originally posted by Chancellor

A lineup with 9 Cecil Coopers could expect to put up 5.8 runs per game on the board.
and with Cecil pitching, probably 5.8 runs for the other team as well.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally posted by dgarza
and with Cecil pitching, probably 5.8 runs for the other team as well.

If his delivery were anything like his batting stance . . .

[julusnc]

The best Brewers have been inducted into the Hall of Fame Yount and Molitor.No other Brewers from the past or present deserve to be enshrined.

Cooper was an ALL-Star.

[The Dude]

Originally posted by BoSox Rule
Some people need to stop making threads about people going into the hall (who have no business being) there just to look smart.

So now I'm trying to look smart because I'd like to know peoples opinions on Cecil Cooper? Grow up please.

[NOMAR22]

Career .298/.337/.466.
241 HR
1,125 RBI's
2,192 hits
1,012 Runs
415 Doubles
100+ RBI's 4 times
2 seasons of 200+ Hits, 30+ HR's, and 100+ RBI's.
5-Time All Star
2 Time GG winner
Led league twice in Doubles and HR's
Top 5 in hits 4 times
Top 10 in HR's 3 times
Top 5 in BA 3 times
Top 10 in OPS+ 4 times

Cecil Cooper never lead the league in Homeruns.
His teammates George Scott once ,Ben Oglivie once and Gorman Thomas did it 2 times .

[Tigerfan1974]

Some people need to stop making threads about people going into the hall (who have no business being) there just to look smart.

I could not agree more!!
Cooper is NOT a Mattingly/Clark/Garvey 1st basemen.

He may have made the All-Star team but so what! I saw him play and I think he was middle of the road. He is certainly below the trio named and others.
The trio, any and all, may not make the Hall and Cooper certainly shouldn't.
Cooper for Scott was, more or less, an equal trade as Scott will not ever make the Hall either.

[KCGHOST]

Cooper is not an HoFer, but he was a fine player, and despite what some people saw he was superior to Steve Garvey. No where near Will Clark, though. Cooper and Mattingly are each other's best comparable player.

[RuthMayBond]

Cooper is not an HoFer, but he was a fine player, and despite what some people saw he was superior to Steve Garvey.If you care nothing about longevity nor defense

<Cooper and Mattingly are each other's best comparable player.>

For Cooper, maybe Adcock or Sievers

[dgarza]

Cooper is NOT a Mattingly/Clark/Garvey 1st basemen.


Agreed.
For me, Cooper is more of a Mickey Vernon, maybe in the same group as Vernon/Hodges/Kluszewski?/Fournier?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cooper seemed to take a few years to "warm up" to the big leagues, which probably "hurt" him a bit for HOF consideration, but once he got to out of Boston, he hit stride. He also knew when to call it quits, instead of hanging on for way too many years, which might have "hurt" his number too, but is really more respectable.

Two things hurt Cooper:

(A) He had his biggest season when George Brett had his biggest season. In the best Luis Gonzalez tradition.

(B) He played just long enough to allow his BA to drop under .300 lifetime.

[538280]

Cooper was a very good player, certainly worthy to be remembered and a key member of one of the greatest offenses of all time. However, his offense was far from great from first base, he did not last extremely long, and made no great contributions outside of his bat. Not a HOFer, though I may rate him ahead of Steve Garvey, and perhaps Don Mattingly (though neither is even close to the HOF IMO). Clark would be far ahead of all three.

[RuthMayBond]

Two things hurt Cooper:
(B) He played just long enough to allow his BA to drop under .300 lifetime.I'm still amazed how people think that exactly reaching a milestone is light years above just missing it by a hair :crazy

[mac195]

Coop was a good player... better than George "Boomer" Scott, but not really close to being a serious HOF candidate.

[oscargamblesfro]

Cooper was a good player overall, and very good at his peak. The middle of his career makes him look like a Hall of Famer, but he was something of a late bloomer and didn't get started as a real regular until about 1976, then was promptly traded for George Scott and Bernie Carbo, a pretty bad trade for the Red Sox in the long run. PERHAPS if Cooper had begun his career with a bad team like Milwaukee was he might have really gotten going before he was 28, and would be a more reasonable candidate than he ultimately is.. In the early to mid 70's, the Red Sox had one of their most fruitful times in terms of drafting players, and I think Cooper, like some other guys they had such as Ben Oglivie, to some degree, just got lost in the glut of productive players like Fisk, Rice, Lynn, Evans, Burleson, etc that they were producing in that time. Cooper was certainly one of the best first basemen from 77 to 83, and maybe the best in the AL a few times, but he also had the misfortune of having Murray around at the beginning of his peak and Mattingly directly after it... A fine player, but there are many nearly as good or better, or roughly similar, even at his position, not in...

[Cougar]

I'm still amazed how people think that exactly reaching a milestone is light years above just missing it by a hair :crazy

The crux of the problem is that perception invariably becomes reality. And reaching such milestones is perceived as an indicator of quality, while missing them (by as little as one hit) lacks that indicator.

It's a cognitive deficiency that explains, while not excusing, the phenomenon. There are discontinuities in the evaluative process that shouldn't be there.

[milladrive]

I think Cecil will eventually make it. Perhaps a coupla decades from now by the Veteran's Committee.

[RuthMayBond]

I think Cecil will eventually make it. Perhaps a coupla decades from now by the Veteran's Committee.Heaven help us. Then they'll have to let in Joe Adcock, Roy Sievers, Bob Watson, Mo Vaughn, Dolph Camilli, Wally Joyner, Kent Hrbek, Joe Judge, Ron Fairly, Jake Daubert, Mickey Vernon, Ed Konetchy, AND Boog Powell.
And that's just among 1B :ughh :hp

[rsuriyop]

He was good, but slightly inferior to Andres Galaraga, who I wouldn't put in the Hall. So in my eyes, Cooper isn't a HOF'er either.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I'm still amazed how people think that exactly reaching a milestone is light years above just missing it by a hair :crazy

How much of a difference that should make is questionable. Hitting .300 isn't a milestone in the sense that 500 HRs or 3,000 hits is; there are a number of career .300 hitters not in the HOF.

Hitting .299 does, however, have a much less attractive look than hitting .300. It's the same principle as charging $9.99 rather than $10.00 at the store; it looks a whole dollar cheaper, but it's only a penny cheaper. Falling under .300 is why Jim Rice isn't in the HOF, IMO. Cooper could afford the fall much less than Rice.

[538280]

How much of a difference that should make is questionable. Hitting .300 isn't a milestone in the sense that 500 HRs or 3,000 hits is; there are a number of career .300 hitters not in the HOF.

Hitting .299 does, however, have a much less attractive look than hitting .300. It's the same principle as charging $9.99 rather than $10.00 at the store; it looks a whole dollar cheaper, but it's only a penny cheaper. Falling under .300 is why Jim Rice isn't in the HOF, IMO. Cooper could afford the fall much less than Rice.

Okay, but this is a clear example of wrongheadedness in the voting, and a prime example of why I hate the way the BBWAA votes.

[janduscframe]

If I remember correctly, he didn't really want to play towards the end of his final season. I think he was a little miffed about something... I could be wrong though as it's been a while. Anyone think he might be a good manager?

[JimAbbott]

Coop, did you ask if Coop deserved? LOL, come on now. Coop was a good player but lightyears away from hall status. Why not start a Boog Powell thread instead

[leecemark]

--That is the problem with sorting firstbasemen. Boog Powell is NOT an unreasonable player to put forth for the Hall of Fame. Nor is Cecil Cooper. It is simply that so many firstbasemen are roughly interchangable that you have to be a slam dunk type Hall of Famer not to get lost in the shuffle. In any given season half the guys starting at firstbase are good enough hitters to be Hall of Famers if they played another position. If you're playing first you are getting paid 99% for your bat.

[THE OX]

IMO Coop may have been the best "pure" hitter the Brewers have ever had. He could hit .300 with a lot of doubles and sort of medium range power.

That said, I was always a bit horrified about his base running, and his strikeout-to-walk ratio always impressed me as nowhere near what it should have been for such a fine hitter.

Finally, in a Bill James publication about 15 years ago, IIRC, it was stated that, in effect, his career could have been longer had he learned to draw a walk when his bat began to slow down, and to reduce his strikeouts. And the imputation was that he was just unwilling to do so. Damn shame, because Coop was a real major asset to the Brewers in the 1980s.

Hall of Fame? If you want to include Garvey and Mattingly and some of the others named in this thread, IMO you've got to consider it seriously.....

[DoubleX]

I have trouble ranking Cooper, as I do with Powell, and pretty much all 1Bman after I get past the top 20 or so. It just seems like a giant mash of players that all seem roughly equal and have about equal (and equally unavailing) claims to being in the Hall (even though some are in).

[AlecBoy006]

Should Cecil Cooper be considered? I say yes.

Why?

319 homers in less than 1500 games. Struck out more than 100 times only once. 12 times he collected 100 hits. 3 times 200. 9 times batted 300. .298 lifetime hitter. 4 times stole double digit bases. 4 times drove in 100 runs. 5 time all star. Check out his performance in the 1982 World Series. He just came alive. 7 28 3 8 1 0 1 6 1 1 .286 .300 .429 0 0 0 1 0
2 time gold glove winner 3 times silver slugger. Twice led the league in doubles. Once led the league in total bases. Twice led the league in RBI's, 3 times was top five in average. If you are not gonna induct him. Atleast give him some consideration.

[plask_stirlac]

So every first baseman with ONE total bases crown and Zero for slugging gets consideration?

Man his OBP was brutal. And if that's coming alive for the World Series, he's heavily medicated even for 1982.

[candy curveball cummings]

Should Cecil Cooper be considered? I say yes.

Why?

319 homers in less than 1500 games. Struck out more than 100 times only once. 12 times he collected 100 hits. 3 times 200. 9 times batted 300. .298 lifetime hitter. 4 times stole double digit bases. 4 times drove in 100 runs. 5 time all star. Check out his performance in the 1982 World Series. He just came alive. 7 28 3 8 1 0 1 6 1 1 .286 .300 .429 0 0 0 1 0
2 time gold glove winner 3 times silver slugger. Twice led the league in doubles. Once led the league in total bases. Twice led the league in RBI's, 3 times was top five in average. If you are not gonna induct him. Atleast give him some consideration.


Wait... what Cecil Cooper are we talking about here? The only Cecil Cooper I know of only hit 241 Home Runs and did so in 1896 games. Pretty sure you are talking about Cecil Fielder here.

While Cooper had a little bit of power in his career, his .466 career slugging percentage is just not indicative of a hall of fame first baseman. And plask_stirlac is right, his .337 OBP isn't good.

When you get right down to it, there's at least 20 guys outside of the Hall more deserving than Cooper.

[KCGHOST]

In this case Cooper is spelled F-I-E-L-D-E-R. And he is even a worse suggestion than Cooper.

[candy curveball cummings]

In this case Cooper is spelled F-I-E-L-D-E-R. And he is even a worse suggestion than Cooper.

Not much, but I agree neither Cecil belongs and Cooper edges Fielder as a player in general.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I have zero problem with the first option. Cooper was a fine player in his day.
That's it. That's all.

[Dalkowski110]

Cooper was an All-Star, but certainly not a HoF'er.

[DoubleX]

Good player, I think I have him in my top 30 at 1B, but that's pretty safely on the outside of the Hall.

[538280]

I'm kind of in between the two options. Yes, Cooper was a very good player, but he is just clearly and beyond any doubt not a HOFer. He had a good average, but only moderate power from 1B and his OBP was not very good. He didn't last particulalry long. There are probably 15-20 1Bmen not in who are better.

[Colorado Express]

You're right, he's not a HOFer, but he did put up some good stats. Good stats, but there is no way he deserves to get in the HOF.

[AlecBoy006]

Hey, I said SHOULD THE HALL CONSIDER HIM? Not should he get elected? And I apologize for mixing Fielder with Cooper.

[grey eagle]

Well, IMO, if a guy is clearly not a HOF'er, then he shouldn't be considered. Why should the Hall committee waste its time considering someone who clearly isn't HOF material? They should consider guys who are, at worst, borderline candidates. Cooper does not fall in that area.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cooper has some talking points. He hit for a good average for his day, and he was good for 20ish HRs a year. He won two Gold Gloves, so he brought some leather to the equation. Cooper was not a patient hitter; he averaged only 38 walks per 162 games, which is not good at all.

Here's the issue I have with Cooper: If the guy was that good, why did it take him so long to establish himself as a MLB regular, when he had opportunities galore in Boston. Yes, I know Yaz was ahead of him at 1B, but Yaz could have always moved back to LF. Cooper's competition in his early years in Boston was not Yaz (not really), but Rick Miller, Tommy Harper, and a struggling Dwight Evans. Yet Cooper couldn't crack the lineup in 1973, and from 1974-76 he was a semi-regular at best, splitting time between 1B and DH, not claiming either job, and never getting 502 plate appearances. The year he played the LEAST was the year the Red Sox won the pennant.

Cooper didn't get himself established until 1977, when he was traded to the Brewers, and when he was 27. Cooper had a real good seven year run, but he never really learned the art of plate discipline. By the time Cooper was 35, he was pretty much no better than a replacement player, and his last two years in the bigs were worse than replacement level.

That's just not what HOFers do. HOFers almost always either take charge of a regular job at a young age, or retain their ability well into their late thirties. Or both. A guy who starts late and fades early is, traditionally, NOT a HOFer, and that's what Cooper is.

[brewers96]

Do you think Cecil Cooper should be elected in to the Cooperstown Hall Of Fame?

[Edgartohof]

He was a very good player, one that most teams would want, but I just don't see him as being good enough to deserve induction to the HOF. He had good power, but not great power, even for his own time, with only 241 HR's, and only topping 30 HR's twice, and this is from a 1Bman, where offense is expected. He did have some good BA's, even stringing together 7 consecutive years with .300+ BA's, with a career high of .352 (unfortunately that happened in 1980, in the same league with George Brett, when he hit .390). And he also did not have a great OBP, especially considering his good BA. I mean his BA was 35 points above league average, but because he did not walk a lot, his career OBP is only 10 points above the league average.

He did have a few very good seasons, even coming in 5th in the MVP voting three separate times. His run from 1975-1983 was very good, and led to a career to be very proud of, but just not HOF worthy.

Now if he had done that while playing passable 2B, I would definitely consider him, but seeing as how he is a 1Bman, I have to say no.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Do you think Cecil Cooper should be elected in to the Cooperstown Hall Of Fame?

No.

Firstly, there are too many 1B ahead of him in line. The following players CLEARLY had superior careers:

Norm Cash
Don Mattingly
Will Clark
Steve Garvey
Mark Grace
Gil Hodges
Keith Hernandez
Bill Buckner
Ted Kluzewski

Hernandez is the only guy on the list that has a strong case. None of these guys are going into the HOF, but all of them, IMO had better careers than Cooper.

[brewers96]

I voted Yes and don't see why anyone should vote No, he was an excellent player.

[cavalier1968]

I voted Yes and don't see why anyone should vote No, he was an excellent player.

If all "excellent players" were inducted the HOF would grow by about a 1000 players

Cav

[brewers96]

If all "excellent players" were inducted the HOF would grow by about a 1000 players

Cav
who cares, what's the HOF there for then
you voted "no" right?

[jalbright]

I voted Yes and don't see why anyone should vote No, he was an excellent player.
If you feel that way, why such a meek opening to the thread?

I'll tell you why I voted no. The Hall is for the best 200 or so (at the moment) major league players of all-time, plus top Negro Leaguers. Cooper can't come close to making that cut. Top 200 major leaguers means top 140 or so among position players, and about the top 18 at your position. Let's look at Cooper with those marks in mind:

Five all-star appearances isn't chicken feed, but it's not a slam-dunk HOF qualification, either. Call that one neutral.

157th in MVP award voting isn't very good by HOF standards, especially since that award hasn't existed for half of baseball history. A definite negative.

189th in black ink among hitters isn't HOF territory (black ink being a measure of league leaderships). Another negative.

183rd in gray ink (a measure of being among the top 10 in the league) isn't HOF territory either. Another negative.

362nd in HOF standards is well below HOF levels. Another definite negative.

He's 38th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in career win shares, which is another definite negative.

He's 35th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in the total of his top 3 seasons in win shares, another definite negative.

He's 26th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in the total of his best five consecutive years in win shares. That's a negative.

In review, he comes up with one neutral, three negatives and four definite negatives. Another way of looking at it is you need a C+ average to pass, but your report card is a C, 3 D's and 4 F's.

Cooper was a very good player, but not a great one. The HOF is for the greats. To me, that leaves Cooper on the outside. It seems as though the vast majority of the voters side with me.

Jim Albright

[The Kid]

If you feel that way, why such a meek opening to the thread?

I'll tell you why I voted no. The Hall is for the best 200 or so (at the moment) major league players of all-time, plus top Negro Leaguers. Cooper can't come close to making that cut. Top 200 major leaguers means top 140 or so among position players, and about the top 18 at your position. Let's look at Cooper with those marks in mind:

Five all-star appearances isn't chicken feed, but it's not a slam-dunk HOF qualification, either. Call that one neutral.

157th in MVP award voting isn't very good by HOF standards, especially since that award hasn't existed for half of baseball history. A definite negative.

189th in black ink among hitters isn't HOF territory (black ink being a measure of league leaderships). Another negative.

183rd in gray ink (a measure of being among the top 10 in the league) isn't HOF territory either. Another negative.

362nd in HOF standards is well below HOF levels. Another definite negative.

He's 38th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in career win shares, which is another definite negative.

He's 35th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in the total of his top 3 seasons in win shares, another definite negative.

He's 26th among 1B in the latest Bill James Historical Abstract in the total of his best five consecutive years in win shares. That's a negative.

In review, he comes up with one neutral, three negatives and four definite negatives. Another way of looking at it is you need a C+ average to pass, but your report card is a C, 3 D's and 4 F's.

Cooper was a very good player, but not a great one. The HOF is for the greats. To me, that leaves Cooper on the outside. It seems as though the vast majority of the voters side with me.

Jim Albright

I'll have to agree with Jim.

First lets look at the ink:

Black ink: 12 (189) (average HOFer-27)

Gray ink: 112 (183) (average HOFer-144)

So far: not a HOFer.

The HOF standard:

Batting - 27.8 (362) (Average HOFer-50)

The Monitor - Batting - 95.5 (156) (Likely HOFer > 100)

So far: not a HOFer

His numbers:

Hits: 2192

HR: 241

RBI: 1125

SB: 89

BA: .298

SLG: .466

OBP: .337

So far: Not a HOFer

Those ahead of him in line:

Don Mattingly
Kieth Hernandez
Gil Hodges
Will Clark
Norm Cash
Mark Grace
Steve Garvey

Awards:

0 MVPs

2 GGs

3 SSs

So far: not a HOFer

Was he ever considered the best player in baseball? No.

Conclusion: Cecil Cooper is not a Hall of Famer.

[Sliding Billy]

I voted Yes and don't see why anyone should vote No, he was an excellent player.
I'd be interested in a more detailed argument. Are you saying that Coop should go in ahead of, for example,

Dick Allen
Norm Cash
Don Mattingly
Keith Hernandez
Boog Powell?

Or that everyone better than Coop should go in as well?

Either way, I'd be interested in your reasoning.

I liked Coop a lot. I always wished the Sox had held on to him, but I can't imagine a good HOF argument for him. Help me out.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I voted Yes and don't see why anyone should vote No, he was an excellent player.

Here's a question for you: Why should Cooper be in when superior players are outside the HOF.

Keith Hernandez was a superior offensive AND defensive player, with a longer career, who won an MVP award.

Steve Garvey was a superior defensive player, with superior career offensive achievements (Cooper's best year MAY have been better than Garvey's) and won an MVP award.

Norm Cash had a MUCH higher OBP and SLG percentage, in a longer career in a more run-scarce environment.

Will Clark and Don Mattingly had careers of comparable length, but bested Cooper in BA, OPB, HRs, RBIs. Mattingly was superior on defense as well. Nothing Cooper did did Mattingly and Clark not do better. And for longer.

Gil Hodges was the best 1B in the NL during the fifties.

Hal Trosky had a higher BA and better slugging stats.

Mark Grace was a GG defensive 1B with more career hits, a higher BA and a higher OBP in a longer career.

If Cooper was THAT good, he would have established himself as a regular with the Red Sox. He failed to do this, resulting in Yaz moving to 1B. What it came down to is that Cooper couldn't beat out Tommy Harper for a regular job at ages 23-24. Is THAT a HOFer?

Really, deal with the question: Why Cooper, and not these other guys? That's ALWAYS the issue with the HOF. If we're taking in new members, are they amongs the BEST of the guys not already in, but eligible? IMO, Cooper CLEARLY does not make that standard. I'm not really sure that he was better than George "Highpockets" Kelly, an absurd selection who is, probably, the worst player in the HOF.

[brewers96]

I'm glad you're all responding to this. I'll keep my nose out of this now:evil

[THE OX]

I disagree with the idea of even retiring Coop's uniform number as a Brewer (see Brewer section), so it goes without saying that I don't consider him true HOF caliber.

That said, he was a fine player who helped the 1978-1984 Brewers immensely.

[Sliding Billy]

I'm glad you're all responding to this. I'll keep my nose out of this now:evil
Hold on a minute, pard. We've been "responding" "Why on earth?" You're like the feller who says, "Hey, I brought the polecat to the party. The rest of you guys can do the cleaning up."

[brewers96]

Hold on a minute, pard. We've been "responding" "Why on earth?" You're like the feller who says, "Hey, I brought the polecat to the party. The rest of you guys can do the cleaning up."
I ment I won't argue about your decision, sorry I did in the first place:)

[The Kid]

I ment I won't argue about your decision, sorry I did in the first place:)

That's just plain giving up. In baseball you never give up, in a game or an argument. For an example: In the Luis Tiant for the hall poll I did about 3 weeks ago, I never gave up my argument. I fought for Tiant until the end, defending him from a large swarm of BBF members. If you feel something, you should never give up an argument for it. Yet you have to be willing to take certain opinions and be willing to learn. Don't just explode on a comment, like a member of BBF that will remain unamed does.

[cavalier1968]

That's just plain giving up. In baseball you never give up, in a game or an argument. For an example: In the Luis Tiant for the hall poll I did about 3 weeks ago, I never gave up my argument. I fought for Tiant until the end, defending him from a large swarm of BBF members. If you feel something, you should never give up an argument for it. Yet you have to be willing to take certain opinions and be willing to learn. Don't just explode on a comment, like a member of BBF that will remain unamed does.


Agree in whole.......except on Tiant........

Cav

[brewers96]

That's just plain giving up. In baseball you never give up, in a game or an argument. For an example: In the Luis Tiant for the hall poll I did about 3 weeks ago, I never gave up my argument. I fought for Tiant until the end, defending him from a large swarm of BBF members. If you feel something, you should never give up an argument for it. Yet you have to be willing to take certain opinions and be willing to learn. Don't just explode on a comment, like a member of BBF that will remain unamed does.
Ok I won't give up my argument. I did that because earlier this year Caption Cold Nose sent me a pm to turn down my sig, and that he wanted me to enjoy my stay here and not to argue with mods anymore. It looks like I'm getting beat here, to all of you who voted yes-thank you. i'm still sticking up to elect him in. Anyone want a Coop avatar? I'm trying to be a mod for BBF and I think you all should be one.Visit Hall Of Fame in Trivia.

[The Kid]

I'm trying to be a mod for BBF and I think you all should be one.Visit Hall Of Fame in Trivia.

Thank you. I am also in pursuit of being a mod.

[Bill Burgess]

Ok I won't give up my argument. I did that because earlier this year Caption Cold Nose sent me a pm to turn down my sig, and that he wanted me to enjoy my stay here and not to argue with mods anymore. It looks like I'm getting beat here, to all of you who voted yes-thank you. i'm still sticking up to elect him in. Anyone want a Coop avatar? I'm trying to be a mod for BBF and I think you all should be one.Visit Hall Of Fame in Trivia.
No need to be too passive. The idea is to fight hard but clean. As long as the discussion remains civil, it's all good. Good fun. Many of us have long lobbied for favorite causes, issues and stuff. After a while, we all learn that our issues get a better response when we present them in depth but in a nice, civil way. It's cool to fight to the death, so long as it's in a pleasant tone.

Bill Burgess

[brewers96]

Thanks Man, same to everybody:clapping :waving :radio

[mtortolero]

Coop was great player by few years (1975 and from 1980 to 1983) however neither in 1980 he was near to be the best hitter of the league, who was George Brett.
In the rest of his carrer there are many so-so years (74, 76,77, from 1984 to 1987) that practically null his good years. Other 1B as Hernandez, Clark, Mattingly, Powell or Cash had MVP seasons, something which is not in the Coop resume. And he was not durable, with only six seasons of 150 or more games in seventeen seasons, very poor for a 1B.
He is a borderline at the best.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cooper, at best, is a guy who COULD have been a HOFer.

Cooper was probably ready for a full-time job in 1972 or 1973 at the latest, but there was no 1B job waiting for him, and he couldn't play the OF.

Had Cooper been made a regular at age 22, he probably would have ended up with 3,000 hits and would POSSIBLY have kept his BA over .300. In 1972, who would YOU have installed at 1B on the Red Sox; Cooper, or an aging Danny Cater? (Cater ended up hitting .237 with little power.) Cooper, IMO, was ready in 1972, and was better than the alternatives, and would have held the job.

At the time, however, the Red Sox were not a team that was big on giving young players a shot. Eddie Kasko their manager during that period, had the pressure of having to contend despite the fact that the core of the team that won the pennant in 1967 was pretty much gone. Kasko actually accomplished this; the 1972 Bosox contended for the division title, and nearly won, but that contention came at the expense of Cecil Cooper in the lineup. Had he been made the regular then, he would have had a longer career on the front end, and probably on the back end as well. He well may have made 3,000 hits, and that WOULD have put Cooper in the HOF.

It didn't happen. And Cooper's not going in the Hall without a ticket.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I was a big Cooper fan back in the day. That stance of his, and he was just a hitting machine. Those Brewer teams of the late seventies through early 80's were fun to watch. He was a fine player.

I think Fuzzy sums it up greatly, though, as usual. His late start hurt him from accumulating the counting stats the writers look at. His short stay at the top put him in a very crowded room of very good players who fall just short.

He won't be forgotten. Not for a long time.

[Sliding Billy]

At the time, however, the Red Sox were not a team that was big on giving young players a shot. Eddie Kasko their manager during that period, had the pressure of having to contend despite the fact that the core of the team that won the pennant in 1967 was pretty much gone. Kasko actually accomplished this; the 1972 Bosox contended for the division title, and nearly won, but that contention came at the expense of Cecil Cooper in the lineup. Had he been made the regular then, he would have had a longer career on the front end, and probably on the back end as well. He well may have made 3,000 hits, and that WOULD have put Cooper in the HOF.

It didn't happen. And Cooper's not going in the Hall without a ticket.
I remember those choices very well. The curse of Harry Frazee at work again. A lot of fans were furious that Cooper wasn't given a shot, especially in light of the trade of Sparky Lyle for Cater. [Cater hit .300,the year before, but with a slugging average of .393 and 34 walks. Where was Bill James when we needed him?] Bill Lee wound up leading the team in saves with 5, rookie Don Newhauser had 4, and Tiant had the other 3. With Coop at first and Lyle in the bullpen, the Sox might have finished a game higher than they did.

[Colorado Express]

I like the Brewers, but NOT A CHANCE!!!

[Cowtipper]

These can be combined:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=17431&highlight=Cecil

[Fuzzy Bear]

Wow.

Glad to see Cooper isn't totally forgotten in the discussion, at least.

Personally, I agree that he belongs in the Clark/Mattingly/Garvey class of first basemen who aren't in.

I'm very reluctant, however, to elect en masse that group and I'd rather shift through it one player at a time looking for a reason that Cooper might stand out above these other guys.

Will Clark - .685 OWP
Don Mattingly - .619 OWP
Cecil Cooper - .596 OWP
Steve Garvey - .570 OWP

If there's a guy that stands out from the group, it's Will Clark. Period.

[Paul Wendt]

I agree.

If this were one of the new polls, including the option to recognize "hall of fame potential". He was a great player during his first seven seasons in Milwaukee, ages 28 to 34. At the front end, the question is "What if he were drafted by Milwaukee?" or another club with a desperate need for major league batting. At the back end, why did he lose it so suddenly?

[PVNICK]

I agree.

If this were one of the new polls, including the option to recognize "hall of fame potential". He was a great player during his first seven seasons in Milwaukee, ages 28 to 34. At the front end, the question is "What if he were drafted by Milwaukee?" or another club with a desperate need for major league batting. At the back end, why did he lose it so suddenly?
I think we're spoiled, or perhaps unaccustomed to the usual aging process of a ballplayer. Prime was @27-32 so its not too unusual. But if anyone knows or cares it does seem as though he played through some injury in '84 before bouncing back in '85.

If he came up on a different club, played regularly (it looks like he was platooned) from say '73 when he was 23 and part -time instead of as a call up the two previous years he gets 1000-1500 more PA so instead of 2192 H its more like 2500+ and closer to 300HR and if the average bumped from .298 to .300 he'd be more viable, particularly considering he preceeded Mattingly and Clark.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think we're spoiled, or perhaps unaccustomed to the usual aging process of a ballplayer. Prime was @27-32 so its not too unusual. But if anyone knows or cares it does seem as though he played through some injury in '84 before bouncing back in '85.

If he cam eup on a differenct club, played regularly (it looks like he was platooned) from say '73 when he was 23 and part -time instead of as a call up the two previous years he gets 1000-1500 more PA so instead of 2192 H its more like 2500+ and closer to 300HR and if the average bumped from .298 to .300 he'd be more viable, particularly considering he preceeded Mattinly and Clark.


Cooper was platooned when he first came up, in part, because there wasn't enough room for him in the Red Sox mix. Yaz played 1B when he first came up, and the Sox (foolishly) chose to give oodles of playing time to Rick Miller and Tommy Harper in the OF. Cooper was ready for the big leagues when he came up, and his career would have been more impressive if he had been installed at 1B from the gate in Boston.

Still, I can't say that this makes him a HOFer. Two years after Cooper came up, Rice and Lynn forced their way into the Red Sox lineup, and the Sox surged to the 1975 pennant. If Cooper were a truly great player coming up, the likelihood is that he would have forced the Sox to accomodate the need to put he, Cooper, in the lineup on a regular basis.