The Poor Man's Hall of Fame

[AstrosFan]

I'm going to post a list of Hall of Famers, and you post their poor man's counterpart. We'll go by position and I'll see if I can estimate a consensus pick for each player.

Johnny Bench -
Yogi Berra -
Roger Bresnahan -
Roy Campanella -
Gary Carter -
Mickey Cochrane -
Bill Dickey -
Buck Ewing -
Rick Ferrell -
Carlton Fisk -
Josh Gibson R -
Gabby Hartnett -
Ernie Lombardi -
Biz Mackey -
Louis Santop -
Ray Schalk -

Base your comparisons on whatever you like, within reason. And let's avoid discussing whether certain players actually should be in the Hall or not. Discussion of who should be the poor man's counterpart to each player is widely encouraged.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm not exactly sure what poor man's Hall of Fame really means, but if you're looking for a decent, though not as good substitute, how about Lance Parrish for Johnny Bench, fine defensive catcher who was a premier slugger for the position. Maybe he's closer to the Upper Middle Class Man's Hall of Fame.

[The Dude]

A good replacement for Carlton Fisk would be Ted Simmons. The second most overall AB's by a catcher. Better offensively than Fisk, however, Simmons defense was average. I actually rank Ted Simmons above Carlton Fisk in Hall worthiness. So he's probably the millionares hall of famer.

[JohnGelnarFan]

Ray Schalk- 18 years .253 B.A. .316 Slug. Ave.
Jerry Grote- 16 years .252 B.A. .326 Slug. Ave.

[Food]

I'd say Gary Carter's poor-man counterpart would be Terry Kennedy.

[Yankwood]

I would like to nominate Bill Freehan, a many-time A.L. All Star. Opposing teams were very reluctant to run on him and he supplied some pop at bat.

[The Dude]

A very poor Campanella might be Gene Tenace. Campy was better defensively, but Tenace was still above average.

Offensively, Tenace hit less, but walked more.

[538280]

Probably two dozen guys could qualify for a poor man's Ray Schalk. The comparison I always throw out there for him is Rick Dempsey, and the sad thing is that Dempsey really wasn't a poor man's Schalk at all, he was actually pretty much the same player. That illustrates how horrible a HOF choice Schalk really was.

[AstrosFan]

Johnny Bench -
Yogi Berra - Del Crandall
Roger Bresnahan -
Roy Campanella -
Gary Carter -
Mickey Cochrane -
Bill Dickey -
Buck Ewing -
Rick Ferrell -
Carlton Fisk -
Josh Gibson -
Gabby Hartnett -
Ernie Lombardi -
Biz Mackey -
Louis Santop -
Ray Schalk -


I got one player who I think could qualify, Del Crandall as a poor man's Yogi Berra. I'll keep working on this list.

[leecemark]

--So basically we're just looking for a non-Hall of fame catcher with similar skill sets? Some of these guys are actually pretty close in actual value (say 99 cents onthe dollar) while the true greats only have pale imitiations outside Cooperstown.
Bench: Lance Parrish
Berra: Thurmun Munson
Campanella: Andy Seminick
Gibson: Mike Piazza (although he'll only qualify until 5 years after he retires)
Dickey: Tim McCarver
Hartnett: Bill Freehan
Carter: Del Crandell
Fisk: Gene Tenace
Cochrane: Johnny Bassler
Ewing: Wally Schang (50 cents worth)
Bresnahan: Wally Schang (98 cents worth)
Lombardi: Bubbles Hargrave (or Joe Torre or Ted Simmons for a rich man's Lombardi)
Mackey: Tony Pena
Santop: Chief Myers
Schalk: Bob Boone (99 cents)
Ferrell: Sherm Lollar (99 cents)

[ElHalo]

Probably two dozen guys could qualify for a poor man's Ray Schalk. The comparison I always throw out there for him is Rick Dempsey, and the sad thing is that Dempsey really wasn't a poor man's Schalk at all, he was actually pretty much the same player. That illustrates how horrible a HOF choice Schalk really was.

Do you realize how ludicrous this is? I mean, yeah, we've gotten into this one before, but the fact that you continue to believe this is just utterly mind boggling. It's essentially the exact equivalent of comparing Ozzie Smith to Garry Templeton, except for the fact that Dempsey wasn't as good as Templeton and Smith wasn't as good as Schalk.

[leecemark]

--I'd agree on the first point, but disagree strongly on the second.

[ElHalo]

I've taken out Santop and Mackey, because I don't know the first thing about Santop, and because I always have the unsettling belief that I'm not giving Mackey enough credit...


Johnny Bench - Charles Johnson
Yogi Berra - Ivan Rodriguez
Roger Bresnahan - Jason Kendall (though not on the defensive end)
Roy Campanella - Javy Lopez
Gary Carter - Mike Lieberthal (though I'm not sure how much poorer...)
Mickey Cochrane - Craig Biggio (yes, he's a catcher now)
Bill Dickey - Elston Howard
Buck Ewing - Ivan Rodriguez
Rick Ferrell - Pat Borders
Carlton Fisk - Benito Santiago
Josh Gibson R - Mike Piazza (the only option, though Gibson was a MUCH better defender)
Gabby Hartnett - Thurman Munson
Ernie Lombardi - Smoky Burgess
Ray Schalk - Jim Sundberg

[ElHalo]

--I'd agree on the first point, but disagree strongly on the second.

That might have been a bit of an exxageration on my part.

[AstrosFan]

--So basically we're just looking for a non-Hall of fame catcher with similar skill sets? Some of these guys are actually pretty close in actual value (say 99 cents onthe dollar) while the true greats only have pale imitiations outside Cooperstown.


I'd say this is a pretty accurate idea of what I'm looking for here, although I think if your poor man player's value is 99% of the Hall of Famer, you need to scale down a bit.

[Yankwood]

I'm not really sure who I would compare him to, but when I was a kid growing up in the 60's, the Twins had a very good catcher named Earl Battey. Basically, the only thing between he and the All Star team was Bill Freehan. Also in the NL, Manny Sanguillen deserves a mention. Crazy as it sounds now, there was even debate back then about who was better Sanguillen or Bench. While I never put him in that company, he was still very good.

[Yankwood]

I never heard of Biz Mackey, but I remember Biz Markie.

[The Dude]

I never heard of Biz Mackey, but I remember Biz Markie.

Youuuuu, you got what I need. But you say he just a friend!

[Captain Cold Nose]

Youuuuu, you got what I need. But you say he just a friend!
Stay on topic please. Remember, baseball. Yes, it's Spring again.
Mackey was just elected to the HOF via the latest Negro League vote, Yankwood. He was Roy Campanella's mentor and has a fine reputation defensively. And that assessment doesn't really do him justice.

[Mr. Boh]

I may be off base here but what about Tony Conigliaro in the outfield. He was averaging about 28 dingers a year before that beaning

[Captain Cold Nose]

I may be off base here but what about Tony Conigliaro in the outfield. He was averaging about 28 dingers a year before that beaning
Which HOF'er is Conigliaro the poor man's version of?

[538280]

Do you realize how ludicrous this is? I mean, yeah, we've gotten into this one before, but the fact that you continue to believe this is just utterly mind boggling. It's essentially the exact equivalent of comparing Ozzie Smith to Garry Templeton, except for the fact that Dempsey wasn't as good as Templeton and Smith wasn't as good as Schalk.

How is it ludicrous? Dempsey was exactly the same type of player as Schalk, and he lasted about the same amout of time. Dempsey had an 87 OPS+, Schalk was at 84. With era adjustments that's probalby like a 7 point lead for Dempsey. Dempsey had a few years where he was actually a pretty good hitter, Schalk didn't really. They both were great defensive catchers, though Schalk was better. Schalk is graded an A+ by WIn Shares, Dempsey an A-. Schalk was reputed to be awesome behind the plate, and Dempsey was reputed to be a great one, perhaps just behind a guy like Gary Carter. Bill James calls him a "defensive wizard", and Craig Wright says in The Diamond Appraised that he was the best defensive catcher in baseball. Additionally, the mertrics may be missing out on some of Dempsey's defensive value just like they are Schalk's, because he was known more as a pitch caller than a thrower. They played almost exactly the same amount of games (1766 for Dempsey, 1762 for Schalk).

Dempsey is the better hitter by a moderate margin, Schalk is better on defense by a good margin, but hitting is more important than fielding. I agree Schalk deserves to rank ahead though, for the simple reason that it was harder for catchers to last long in his day. But, they are essentially the exact same player and have about the same value.

[ElHalo]

Dempsey is the better hitter by a moderate margin, Schalk is better on defense by a good margin, but hitting is more important than fielding. I agree Schalk deserves to rank ahead though, for the simple reason that it was harder for catchers to last long in his day. But, they are essentially the exact same player and have about the same value.

I generally tend to rank, for catchers, defense and offense about equally (i.e., a catcher's value is 50% offense, 50% defense), a far skew from any other position, just because of the vital nature of having a good catcher. Dempsey and his no GG's may have been a fine defender, but Schalk was the greatest of all time.

I'm going to come right out and say that I don't agree with this idea, but follow this logic for a second. If you accept the idea that a catcher's value should go 50/50 for offense and defense (you don't have to, but for argument's sake), and you accept the idea that Schalk was a lousy hitter and essentially the perfect defender... than Schalk would be just as valuable as Mike Piazza. I'm not saying that I buy that; Piazza makes my top 75 all time, Schalk would struggle to crack 150. But it's not that much of a stretch.

[baseballPAP]

I haven't ever attempted to put my entire system down in words, but its always been a scale of 10 system, and varies by position. For catchers, it is 5 components, those being hitting for contact, hitting for power, overall defense, throwing arm, and intangibles(for catchers this includes calling a game, speed, leadership, etc.). I then weight the categories, normally 60% hitting, 30 defense and 10% intangibles. In this system, Scalk comes out terribly, in fact a little behind Dempsey. He does get a boost from being reputably THE greatest defensive catcher ever. He stacks up like this:
contact:2
power:1...1.5 hitting component
defense:10
arm:10....10 defense componenet
intangibles:10(including the bonus for best ever)

So, he rates out at something close to 49.

Dempsey:
contact:2
power:3...hitting component 2.5
defense:9
arm:8,,,defense component 8.5
intangibles:7

He rates at about 47.5. Thats pretty close folks.

For those about to pick apart the system, its not perfect, and its not the end of my rankings. I do take into account league context when rating their abilities, but obviously the last 10% is very subjective. And I like it that way.