My All-Time Undeserving HoFer Team

[candy curveball cummings]

My team of the most undeserving Hall of Famers by position:

C: Ray Schalk
1B: George Kelly
2B: Bill Mazeroski
3B: George Kell
SS: Phil Rizzuto
OF: Tommy McCarthy
OF: Richie Ashburn
OF: Ross Youngs

P: Herb Pennock

What do you all think?

[iPod]

How many games do you think a team like this wins, given average pitching other than Pennock, in today's game? How many pennants in a 5 year span do you think this team wins? It lacks power, but we're talking about probably the best defensive team ever.

[leecemark]

C: Rick Ferrell (at least Schalk has the best defensive catcher ever claim)
1B: agree with Kelly (nobody else nearly as bad)
2B: Maz could be the man, but I lean toward Johnny Evers
3B: Fred Lindstrom was a way worse choice than Kell. Judy Johnson is the worst Negro League selection.
SS: Travis Jackson
LF: Chick Hafey
CF: Lloyd Waner
RF: Ross Youngs (McCarthy is probably the worst player, but he is supposedly in more for his innovations)
SP: Marquard and Haines were worse than Pennock
RP: Bruce Sutter

[candy curveball cummings]

How many games do you think a team like this wins, given average pitching?

Not sure. What do you think?

[leecemark]

How many games do you think a team like this wins, given average pitching other than Pennock, in today's game? How many pennants in a 5 year span do you think this team wins?

--If you get them all in their best years its a great team, even if they don't deserve the Hall. They probably win the pennant. If you get their average years then you might have a .500 season.

[candy curveball cummings]

C: Rick Ferrell (at least Schalk has the best defensive catcher ever claim)
1B: agree with Kelly (nobody else nearly as bad)
2B: Maz could be the man, but I lean toward Johnny Evers
3B: Fred Lindstrom was a way worse choice than Kell. Judy Johnson is the worst Negro League selection.
SS: Travis Jackson
LF: Chick Hafey
CF: Lloyd Waner
RF: Ross Youngs (McCarthy is probably the worst player, but he is supposedly in more for his innovations)
SP: Marquard and Haines were worse than Pennock
RP: Bruce Sutter

I see the Lindstrom argument, I almost put Hafey. I knew someone was going to say something about McCarthy.

About the pitchers, I wouldn't say Marquard was WAY worse than Pennock, but I can see the argument. I think Pennock is worse than Haines, but that's just my opinion. I could change my list to some of these, but Travis Jackson? I don't know.

[candy curveball cummings]

--If you get them all in their best years its a great team, even if they don't deserve the Hall. They probably win the pennant. If you get their average years then you might have a .500 season.

And if you played them against the rest of the Hall of Fame, they'd get creamed.

[Honus Wagner Rules]

The worst picks were the "Frankie Frisch" picks from the 1970s:

Jesse Haines
Dabe Bancroft
Chick Hafey
Ross Youngs
George Kelly
Jim Bottomly
Fred Lindstrom

[RuthMayBond]

My team of the most undeserving Hall of Famers by position:

C: Ray Schalk
1B: George Kelly
2B: Bill Mazeroski
3B: George Kell
SS: Phil Rizzuto
OF: Tommy McCarthy
OF: Richie Ashburn
OF: Ross Youngs

P: Herb Pennock

What do you all think?I think you better find a replacement for Ashburn

[Fuzzy Bear]

The worst picks were the "Frankie Frisch" picks from the 1970s:

Jesse Haines
Dabe Bancroft
Chick Hafey
Ross Youngs
George Kelly
Jim Bottomly
Fred Lindstrom

Bottomley is somewhat defensible, though not as good as Will Clark or Don Mattingly.

Youngs was picked because he died young, in his prime. Youngs was not a great selection, to be sure, but his case is better than some on this list. He played 8 full seasons, half of a ninth and a cup of coffee for a tenth. He died of Bright's Disease, a kidney disease which may explain the off year in his next to last season. Youngs was a hustling and popular player by most accounts I have read. He had 1,491 hits in essentially 8.5 seasons of full-time play. He hit .322 lifetime, and that's including 2 years of full-time play in the deadball era. Had he not become ill, he probably would have finished with an average in the .330s for his career, and would have come close to 3,000 hits if not exceeding 3,000 hits. His selection is over-criticized. He is not the worst RF in the HOF; Harry Hooper is, and probably by a goodly margin. Youngs is one of the Frisch cabal selections that has some valid defenses.

Haines and Marquard are at the bottom of the HOF for pitchers, below Hoyt and Pennock. George Kelly is the worst HOFer, period. Chick Hafey is a ridiculous selection; he only had 6 full-time seasons of play. The argument for Hafey is the same silly argument for Riggs Stephenson; enshrining Stephenson (who has his advocates) would be like enshrining Manny Mota. Ken Williams and Bobby Veach would each have been better selections, and I'm not advocating for Williams or Veach. Lindstrom is a silly selection, in that he had a short career, and was shifted to the outfield in mid-career. His selection would be more defensible if he had been an excellent fielding third baseman his entire career, but that wasn't the case.

Bancroft may, or may not, be the worst shortstop in the HOF. I loathe the Rizzuto selection, but Rizzuto does deserve SOME credit for the three prime years he missed to WWII. Travis Jackson wasn't a super selection, either. Bancroft was considered a star in his time, at least, but the question becomes: Why Bancroft? Why Bancroft and not Dick Bartell? Why Bancroft and not Art Fletcher, who had more playing time in the deadball era? Why Bancroft and not Ray Chapman (granted that rules would have to be excepted for Chapman)? It is not clear that Bancroft is the worst pick ever at shortstop, but he did benefit from his friendship with Frisch.

[leecemark]

Youngs was picked because he died young, in his prime. Youngs was not a great selection, to be sure, but his case is better than some on this list. He played 8 full seasons, half of a ninth and a cup of coffee for a tenth. He died of Bright's Disease, a kidney disease which may explain the off year in his next to last season. Youngs was a hustling and popular player by most accounts I have read. He had 1,491 hits in essentially 8.5 seasons of full-time play. He hit .322 lifetime, and that's including 2 years of full-time play in the deadball era. Had he not become ill, he probably would have finished with an average in the .330s for his career, and would have come close to 3,000 hits if not exceeding 3,000 hits. His selection is over-criticized. He is not the worst RF in the HOF; Harry Hooper is, and probably by a goodly margin. Youngs is one of the Frisch cabal selections that has some valid defenses.



--Sure its possible Youngs would have had a Hall of Fame career had he lived, but its far from certain. Youngs was not exactly a dominating player, we have no idea how he would have aged and 3,000 hits is very much a best case scenario (many better players have come up way short). Based on what he actually did accomplish he is not anywhere close to being a Hall of Famer.

[iPod]

Not sure. What do you think?

I would think that given average pitching this team would easily win the pennant, despite a huge lack of power, in large part because average pitching would look very, very good with all those great fielders. I guess what interested me in this is that really, a championship team historically looks a lot weaker than one would think. The 2004 Red Sox won 98 games with regulars like Kevin Millar, Mark Bellhorn, Orlando Cabrera, Bill Mueller, and Gabe Kapler, who will be totally lost to history. The made-up team at the start has better players at each of those positions.

[Fuzzy Bear]

By position:

1B George Kelly
2B Bill Mazeroski
SS Rabbit Maranville
3B Freddie Lindstrom
LF Chick Hafey
CF Lloyd Waner
RF Harry Hooper
C Roger Bresnahan
SP Rube Marquard
SP Jesse Haines
SP Eppa Rixey
SP Vic Willis
RP Bruce Sutter

[Dalkowski110]

By position...
C TIE: Rick Ferrell and Roger Bresnahan
1B George Kelly
2B Bill Mazeroski or Johnny Evers
SS Joe Tinker (surprised I haven't seen him mentioned) or Dave Bancroft
3B Fred Lindstrom
OF Chick Hafey
OF Tommy McCarthy (What accomplishments did thiss guy have, exactly?)
OF Lloyd Waner
SP Candy Cummings (Aside from Jim Creighton coming up with the curve, or at least a variant, before Cummings and Fred Goldsmith and Phoney Martin coming up with one concurrently, does the inventor of a pitch deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? It's clear that Jim Creighton, who probably should be in based on the many contributions he offered, invented the fastball, but he's not in.)
SP Jesse Haines
SP Rube Marquard
SP Jack Chesbro or Ed Walsh
SP Old Hoss Radborune (I'm convinced he's in for "the season;" IMO Tony Mullane was a better pitcher.)
RP: Bruce Sutter (Did they put this guy in just for the sake of inducting someone? At least put in Goose Gossage or Roy Face or Firpo Marberry or somebody who actually did something of note)

Non-player: Morgan E. Bulkeley (Did they put this guy in just because Ban Johnson is in???)

[-Kyle-]

Ed Walsh
Seriously?

Walsh ERA+ 189

Vic Willis ERA+ 118

ERA+ isn't everything, but still....


C Ray Schalk
1b George Kelly
2B Bill Mazeroski
SS Rabbit Maranville
3B Fred Lindstrom
LF Chick Hafey
CF Lloyd Waner
RF Harry Hooper
SP:Rube Marquard
RP:Bruce Sutter

:eek: Whoa, a (almost) all defensive team!

[CTaka]

By position...
C TIE: Rick Ferrell and Roger Bresnahan
1B George Kelly
2B Bill Mazeroski or Johnny Evers
SS Joe Tinker (surprised I haven't seen him mentioned) or Dave Bancroft
3B Fred Lindstrom
OF Chick Hafey
OF Tommy McCarthy (What accomplishments did thiss guy have, exactly?)
OF Lloyd Waner
SP Candy Cummings (Aside from Jim Creighton coming up with the curve, or at least a variant, before Cummings and Fred Goldsmith and Phoney Martin coming up with one concurrently, does the inventor of a pitch deserve to be in the Hall of Fame? It's clear that Jim Creighton, who probably should be in based on the many contributions he offered, invented the fastball, but he's not in.)
SP Jesse Haines
SP Rube Marquard
SP Jack Chesbro or Ed Walsh
SP Old Hoss Radborune (I'm convinced he's in for "the season;" IMO Tony Mullane was a better pitcher.)
RP: Bruce Sutter (Did they put this guy in just for the sake of inducting someone? At least put in Goose Gossage or Roy Face or Firpo Marberry or somebody who actually did something of note)

Non-player: Morgan E. Bulkeley (Did they put this guy in just because Ban Johnson is in???)

There is no way Bresnahan should be on this list. Roger's career OPS+ of 126 dwarfs Ferrell's 95. Roger has a huge advantage on the bases with 212 stolen bases compared to Ferrell's 29 (with 35 caught stealing!). This isn't at all a close comparison.

My list would be:

C Rick Ferrell (Schalk is close but avoids the dubious distinction because of his defensive advantage. If you are arguably the greatest defensive player in history at a key defensive position, I'll give them a pass).
1B George Kelly - easily
2B It's easy to pick on Mazeroski, but Red Schoendienst deserves consideration (see Schalk).
SS Dave Bancroft or Travis Jackson (Tinker was an A+ defensive shortstop).
3B Fred Lindstrom
LF Chick Hafey
CF Lloyd Waner
RF Tommy McCarthy
P Jesse Haines

I didn't include any Negro Leaguers because I don't know enough about how to measure their accomplishments.

[Fuzzy Bear]

There is no way Bresnahan should be on this list. Roger's career OPS+ of 126 dwarfs Ferrell's 95. Roger has a huge advantage on the bases with 212 stolen bases compared to Ferrell's 29 (with 35 caught stealing!). This isn't at all a close comparison.

Bresnahan caught only 974 games. Ferrell caught 1,806 games; that was almost the record; Al Lopez caught 1,918 to capture the record. Granting that Bresnahan played in a different era, that's still a huge difference. There is no way I can rate Bresnahan ahead of Ferrell with THIS GREAT a difference in games at catcher.

[CTaka]

Bresnahan caught only 974 games. Ferrell caught 1,806 games; that was almost the record; Al Lopez caught 1,918 to capture the record. Granting that Bresnahan played in a different era, that's still a huge difference. There is no way I can rate Bresnahan ahead of Ferrell with THIS GREAT a difference in games at catcher.

I think you are not placing enough consideration to the difference in eras. Ferrell played from 1929-1947, an era when players could catch more games than in the deadball era. Bresnahan retired in 1915, a time when playing conditions and (lack of) protective equipment resulted in players catching fewer games. Early in Bresnahan's career, his speed and athleticism allowed him to play other positions, predominantly centerfield.

In terms of Runs Created/AB, Bresnahan is at 84.80 compared to 73.57. In terms of Batting Runs/AB, Bresnahan is at 20.64 while Mr. Ferrell is at a whopping -0.75! And in terms of Runs Generated/AB, it is Bresnahan with 3.81 and Ferrell with 0.69.

Career Win Shares has Bresnahan with 231 to 206 for Ferrell, despite Ferrell playing over 440 more games. Bresnahan's top 5 seasons total 116 win shares compared to 85 for Ferrell. In terms of career win shares per 162 games, it is 25.88 for Bresnahan and 17.71 for Ferrell.

Yes, Ferrell caught more games than Bresnahan. It is still an easy pick for me to take Bresnahan over Ferrell.

[Dalkowski110]

Actually, Bresnahan wasn't even inducted on the premise of his playing prowess alone. He invented the modern catcher's mask, remember? Bresnahan was above average for a catcher, make no mistake, but his statistics don't seem Hall of Fame-worthy to me. He was good, even a semistar, but I wouldn't call him worthy of the Hall of Fame. He batted a solid .279 over his career, yes, and was also fast. But this was the Deadball Era, and many players had high stolen base totals. That said, I would consider Rick Ferrell to be worse and less deserving.

As for making Tinker's case as a "great defensive shortstop," and thus making him Hall-worthy, I wouldn't rely on his .262 career batting average. Also compare him to Dave Bancroft, who I A) also don't believe belongs in the Hall of Fame and B) believe is better than Tinker. Bancroft fielded .944 at short over essentially fifteen seasons. Tinker fielded .938 over essentially thirteen. Bancroft also outhits Tinker .279 to .262. When you say Bancroft deserves mention as undeserving, but also omit Tinker on the premise he was an A+ defensive shortstop, I don't think that's quite fair. Regardless, your choice of Travis Jackson is another good pick.

Regarding Ed Walsh, he peaks from 1906-1912 and has a great half-career. If he'd lasted a bit longer and maybe had a peak of eight or nine seasons, yes, I could see him going in, but he just doesn't have the longevity. Also, those comparing Walsh to Koufax (who I'm sorta undecided on) forget a few things. First off, Koufax retired coming off the best season of his career with an arthritic condition. Walsh had been attempting comeback seasons from 1913-1917, in which despite a great ERA, he manages a record of 13-8. Walsh also had access to a spitball and used it extensively (though he threw it hard, wrecking his arm), whereas Koufax was forced to retire because of the pitch he threw. The peak years had been gone for five years for Ed Walsh when he finally gave up, but Koufax was in the midst of his peak years. But the single most significant difference between Walsh and Koufax was that Koufax was THE dominant pitcher of the early 1960's-mid-1960's. Ed Walsh wasn't even the dominant pitcher of the American League during his peak. He was up there, sure, but he wasn't pitching personified/so far above the competition during his career peak that he blew everyone else away. Like I said, the jury is still out for me on Koufax. But in no way shape or form do I believe that Walsh belongs in Cooperstown.

As for Vic Willis vs. Ed Walsh, I agree that Willis did in no way dominate in the way MANY Deadball Era pitchers did, especially because of his somewhat odd career (he has two career peaks...1898-1902 and 1906-1909). Willis' career 2.63 ERA was high for the time, and he fails the test of pitching for a bad team, but he isn't as bad a pick as Herb Pennock (the Tommy John of his time, who just slowly accumulated his wins), say.

[dl4060]

I would think that given average pitching this team would easily win the pennant, despite a huge lack of power, in large part because average pitching would look very, very good with all those great fielders. I guess what interested me in this is that really, a championship team historically looks a lot weaker than one would think. The 2004 Red Sox won 98 games with regulars like Kevin Millar, Mark Bellhorn, Orlando Cabrera, Bill Mueller, and Gabe Kapler, who will be totally lost to history. The made-up team at the start has better players at each of those positions.


I don't think this team would come anywhere close without outstanding pitching. That red sox team also had some terrific pitchers. I do not think Manny and the gang were making Pedro and Schilling look great by making nice plays. Gabe Kapler had 290 atbats that year, I don't think you could consider him a regular over Trot, Manny, or Damon in the outfield. Bill Meuller was Ok that year, certainly not a star, but not a horrible player for a third baseman. He was coming off a batting title in 03'. Bill Mazeroski never had as good a year as Belhorn did in 2004, he had a long career, and was good defensively, but I would take Belhorn's bat the way he hit in 2004 over Maz in any one of his seasons. Some of those guys were good for those seasons, then surrounded by Manny, Ortiz, Damon, Pedro....

I think the point that championship teams are often weaker than they appear is a very good one. Look at the yankees lineup from 98' and their lineup of the last few seasons. The 98' one looks weak in comparison to the modern version. Sometimes great players surrounded by good players who achieve is the recipe for success. Bill Mueller may not go down in history, but he had afew pretty good years for the sox. Same thing with Mark Belhorn.

[CTaka]

[QUOTE=Dalkowski110]Actually, Bresnahan wasn't even inducted on the premise of his playing prowess alone. He invented the modern catcher's mask, remember? Bresnahan was above average for a catcher, make no mistake, but his statistics don't seem Hall of Fame-worthy to me. He was good, even a semistar, but I wouldn't call him worthy of the Hall of Fame. He batted a solid .279 over his career, yes, and was also fast. But this was the Deadball Era, and many players had high stolen base totals. That said, I would consider Rick Ferrell to be worse and less deserving.

No, I had never heard or read about Bresnahan inventing the catcher's mask. The catcher's mask was shown in pictures from the 19th century. Bresnahan is generally credited with inventing shin guards - he wore cricket style shin guards. His .279 batting average (compared to a league average of .265) was very good for the era, but his .386 OBP is the particularly impressive number as I believe it is higher than any other Hall of Fame catcher outside of Mickey Cochrane.

As for making Tinker's case as a "great defensive shortstop," and thus making him Hall-worthy, I wouldn't rely on his .262 career batting average. Also compare him to Dave Bancroft, who I A) also don't believe belongs in the Hall of Fame and B) believe is better than Tinker. Bancroft fielded .944 at short over essentially fifteen seasons. Tinker fielded .938 over essentially thirteen. Bancroft also outhits Tinker .279 to .262. When you say Bancroft deserves mention as undeserving, but also omit Tinker on the premise he was an A+ defensive shortstop, I don't think that's quite fair. Regardless, your choice of Travis Jackson is another good pick. (quote from Dalkowski)

Um, you are considering their respective eras, correct? Remember that Bancroft's .944 fielding percentage was 3 points above league average while Tinker's .938 was 12 points above league average. I'm not sure it is fair to say that Bancroft "outhit" Tinker since Bancroft's .279 career average is 2 points below league average - the exact same as Tinker's .262 compared to his league average.

[Dalkowski110]

"No, I had never heard or read about Bresnahan inventing the catcher's mask."

Nor have I. Hence "modern." I still just see a case of the guy being an above average semistar, and yes, I'm factoring in the era. Not a Hall of Famer. However, you do present a fair case.

You did catch me on Bancroft's fielding average versus Tinker's. But then again, Jack Barry was every bit the fielder Tinker was (his fielding stats are VERY similar) and a better hitter, too. He played in the same era, for three fewer years (basically), and could also field second base excellently. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame? No. But he was acknowledged as one of the best defensive men of the era. Bancroft was also said to be an excellent clutch hitter (one of the reasons they threw the guy undeservingly in). I've heard nothing of the sort about Tinker. In my mind, no one can make a case as to why Joe Tinker belongs in the Hall of Fame.

[RuthMayBond]

Actually, Bresnahan wasn't even inducted on the premise of his playing prowess alone. He invented the modern catcher's mask, remember?There's a couple of boys from Hahvahd, or Deacon White, or Pete Hotaling, or Mike Dorgan that'd like a word with you :D As far as shin guards, even Michael Kahoe or Jay Clarke may have beaten him.

[Dalkowski110]

I'm no longer sure about Bresnahan and the catcher's mask. I had heard he popularized a modified version of Frederick Thayer's 1893 mask. As for Pete "Monkey" Hotaling, I'm pretty sure he was the inventor of the actual wire mesh mask, rather than something that just blocked the face from baseballs. As far as Jay Clarke goes, I've studied his Minor League career a decent bit (being prompted by the game in Texarkana), and he sometimes wore a crude form of protection beginning around 1900. Fleet Walker, among others, actually has the best case for inventing shin guards in 1884, since they can be corroborated by even the players who despised him (Tony Mullane, for one, distinctly recalled it. Deacon McGuire, who held no animosity toward Walker, also recalls him having worn "shin protectors."). Walker's shin guards however neither caught on, nor did they even last with Walker himself (I only believe he wore them in 1884, as in the Minors before and after, no one recalls him wearing shin protectors). There is no doubt, however, that Bresnahan popularized the shin guard, and invented the modern version, as well.

[538280]

I agree with CTaka on Bresnahan. Bresnahan and Hughie Jennings reputation as HOFers was really hurt by Bill James in his great book The Politics of Glory. I think Bill was mistaken about both of them though. He was looking too much at his new HOF measures like HOF standards and HOF monitor which are very unfair to short career players with great peaks, since they make no peak consideration. Jennings was easily the best player in baseball in the mid 1890s, and also has a good managing career afterwards. I think he's a borderline case, but I'd put him in.

James' methods were also unfair to Bresnahan because catchers in his time rarely even caught 100 games. He penalizes him for having a short career when his career was actually one of the longest for any catcher at the time he retired. Also, he played in a very low offensive environment his entire career, and those methods created by James make no adjustment for this.

While I don't think he belongs with the top tier HOFers, he was just as good a hitter as them. His 126 OPS+ is about the same as guys like Cochrane, Bench, and Berra. He's a legit HOFer.

[shawnofthedead]

this one has kept quite a few guys out of the Hall...but always seems to be because all they could do was hit (Jim Rice, Harold Baines, etc...)

why doesnt the argument work the other way for defense? Ozzie Smith was hands and above the best defensive SS of his era but lets be honest...Ozzie was lousy at the plate.

Ozzie piled up these tremendous numbers over his 19 year career

AVG .262
HR 28 (was this the deadball era?:laugh )
RBI 793

Ozzie finished in the 10 top in the league..in OUTS made at bat 8 TIMES!

Ozzie did steal a lot of bases, but man, those numbers really make you think twice about him getting into the HOF so easily....

[Fuzzy Bear]

this one has kept quite a few guys out of the Hall...but always seems to be because all they could do was hit (Jim Rice, Harold Baines, etc...)

why doesnt the argument work the other way for defense? Ozzie Smith was hands and above the best defensive SS of his era but lets be honest...Ozzie was lousy at the plate.

Ozzie piled up these tremendous numbers over his 19 year career

AVG .262
HR 28 (was this the deadball era?:laugh )
RBI 793

Ozzie finished in the 10 top in the league..in OUTS made at bat 8 TIMES!

Ozzie did steal a lot of bases, but man, those numbers really make you think twice about him getting into the HOF so easily....

There were a number of years where Ozzie was the best OFFENSIVE shortstop in the NL; he got better with age on offense.

Defense at the middle infield positions is more critical than defense at other positions. Defense at shortstop is the most critical area of defense for a team. As such, in the middle infield, SOME extra credit for defense can be given. Some. It doesn't mean that we can put Roy McMillian or Roger Metzger in the HOF, but it does mean we can consider Omar Vizquel seriously.

[shawnofthedead]

There were a number of years where Ozzie was the best OFFENSIVE shortstop in the NL; he got better with age on offense.

Defense at the middle infield positions is more critical than defense at other positions. Defense at shortstop is the most critical area of defense for a team. As such, in the middle infield, SOME extra credit for defense can be given. Some. It doesn't mean that we can put Roy McMillian or Roger Metzger in the HOF, but it does mean we can consider Omar Vizquel seriously.


I agree with your defensive argument, The Wizard really plugged up the middle. However, I find it dubious that Oz was ever the best offensive player at his position.. what years are you talking about? his yearly numbers are pretty miserable. He only had one .300 year in 1987 and he hit exactly 0 homers that year with 75 ribbies.

[leecemark]

--In the second half of his career Ozzie was a good offensive SS, although he would still have been an unimpressive hitter for an outfielder. He WAS a miserable hitter in his SanDiego years and ended up a more or less average offensive SS for his career. OTOH (and this is why he belongs in the Hall) Smith was to defense as Ruth was to offense. I think Ozzie is pretty clearly the most valuable defensive player in the history of the game.

[CTaka]

"No, I had never heard or read about Bresnahan inventing the catcher's mask."

Nor have I. Hence "modern." I still just see a case of the guy being an above average semistar, and yes, I'm factoring in the era. Not a Hall of Famer. However, you do present a fair case.

You did catch me on Bancroft's fielding average versus Tinker's. But then again, Jack Barry was every bit the fielder Tinker was (his fielding stats are VERY similar) and a better hitter, too. He played in the same era, for three fewer years (basically), and could also field second base excellently. Does he belong in the Hall of Fame? No. But he was acknowledged as one of the best defensive men of the era. Bancroft was also said to be an excellent clutch hitter (one of the reasons they threw the guy undeservingly in). I've heard nothing of the sort about Tinker. In my mind, no one can make a case as to why Joe Tinker belongs in the Hall of Fame.

You must be thinking of a different Jack Barry.

I'm thinking of the Jack Barry that was part of the A's $100,000 infield. He had a career fielding percentage that was 6 points above league average in a very short career. Tinker was 12 points above league average. Barry's range factor was 37 points BELOW league average - not a particularly good thing for a SS - while Tinker's was 35 points above league average. Jack Barry's Fielding Runs Above Average for his career is a whopping -51 while Tinker registered 216. For Fielding Runs Above Replacement, Tinker totalled 798 to Barry's 246. Granted, Barry had a much shorter career, but his highest single season total in FRAR is 54; Tinker had 8 seasons of 54 or more with a high of 81.

Joe Tinker easily deserved his fielding grade of A+ from Bill James; Jack Barry should feel fortunate that he managed to get a grade of C+.

I certainly don't think Joe Tinker represents the front line of Hall of Fame shortstops. But Jack Barry is nowhere close in this discussion.

[CTaka]

I agree with CTaka on Bresnahan. Bresnahan and Hughie Jennings reputation as HOFers was really hurt by Bill James in his great book The Politics of Glory. I think Bill was mistaken about both of them though. He was looking too much at his new HOF measures like HOF standards and HOF monitor which are very unfair to short career players with great peaks, since they make no peak consideration. Jennings was easily the best player in baseball in the mid 1890s, and also has a good managing career afterwards. I think he's a borderline case, but I'd put him in.

James' methods were also unfair to Bresnahan because catchers in his time rarely even caught 100 games. He penalizes him for having a short career when his career was actually one of the longest for any catcher at the time he retired. Also, he played in a very low offensive environment his entire career, and those methods created by James make no adjustment for this.

While I don't think he belongs with the top tier HOFers, he was just as good a hitter as them. His 126 OPS+ is about the same as guys like Cochrane, Bench, and Berra. He's a legit HOFer.

Thanks for the support, Chris. I think Bresnahan was regarded fairly highly in his day, but in later years he tended to be viewed less favorably. In the first year of the Hall, 1936 when the first five (Cobb, Ruth, Wagner, Mathewson and Johnson) were elected, Bresnahan managed to get a very respectable 20.80% of the vote. That was more than Keeler, Delahanty, Walsh, and Three Finger Brown. Heck, that was only 6% fewer than Eddie Collins received! In the voting for 1945, the year he was later tabbed for induction by the Veteran's Committee, Bresnahan received 53% of the vote, or 3% more than Mickey Cochrane received.

But I think you are right that James' harsh words on his selection in his book "Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame", created the perception that Bresnahan was an undeserving inductee. But he has the 4th highest career OBP of any catcher in history with excellent speed for a catcher, exceptional versatility and a strong throwing arm (he came up as a pitcher). No, he's not going to make people forget Bench, Berra or Cochrane, but he is a deserving Hall of Famer.

[CTaka]

[QUOTE=Dalkowski110
Jack Barry was every bit the fielder Tinker was (his fielding stats are VERY similar) and a better hitter, too. [/QUOTE]

Jack Barry was a better hitter than Joe Tinker? Barry's career average was 16 points below league average in only 11 seasons; Tinker's was only 2 points below league average in 15 seasons. Tinker's career OPS+ was 96 compared to 88 for Jack Barry. How do you figure that Barry was the better hitter than Tinker?

[Dalkowski110]

Regarding Barry, there's no need to get edgy. I made a mistake by hastily throwing him ahead of Tinker and I was wrong. I also reread Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame (aka The Politics of Glory) and am no longer sure about Bresnahan being undeserving. Your argument is very convincing. One guy inducted as a player I haven't heard mentioned, though, is Miller Huggins. I can see him being inducted for his managerial achievements, but for his playing abilities? Why?

Finally, getting back to Tinker himself, I still think a poem got that man inducted, and he is unworthy of a plaque in Cooperstown. No matter how good a fielder you think he is, if you say that Bancroft doesn't belong, neither does Tinker. With basically equal batting averages, you revert to fielding (remember, consider respective eras, so homers and steals can't really be counted). That only leaves Tinker a better fielder, and not one who is head and shoulders above Bancroft. Ditto to Johnny Evers. I do think Frank Chance is deserving, though.

[candy curveball cummings]

One guy inducted as a player I haven't heard mentioned, though, is Miller Huggins. I can see him being inducted for his managerial achievements, but for his playing abilities? Why?


Miller Huggins is in the Hall as a Manager, not as a player, I even triple-checked.

[Dalkowski110]

Thanks, I once again stand corrected. I fully support Huggins in there as a manager. BTW, I find it interesting why no one's given any support to Ed Walsh. I thought he'd be more popular of a player. Not that I'm upset people are agreeing with me...;)

[candy curveball cummings]

Thanks, I once again stand corrected. I fully support Huggins in there as a manager. BTW, I find it interesting why no one's given any support to Ed Walsh. I thought he'd be more popular of a player. Not that I'm upset people are agreeing with me...;)


I'll tell you what though, when I read "Miller Huggins", I got a little scared. Were he in the Hall as a player, he'd be the worst second baseman in the Hall.

[CTaka]

I also reread Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame (aka The Politics of Glory) and am no longer sure about Bresnahan being undeserving. Your argument is very convincing.

Hey, if I was able to change your mind on Bresnahan, then that's pretty cool.:cool:

Finally, getting back to Tinker himself, I still think a poem got that man inducted, and he is unworthy of a plaque in Cooperstown. No matter how good a fielder you think he is, if you say that Bancroft doesn't belong, neither does Tinker. With basically equal batting averages, you revert to fielding (remember, consider respective eras, so homers and steals can't really be counted). That only leaves Tinker a better fielder, and not one who is head and shoulders above Bancroft. Ditto to Johnny Evers. I do think Frank Chance is deserving, though.

I think that you are correct in that neither Bancroft nor Tinker should be considered top of the line hall of famers. But I think Travis Jackson is more "undeserving" than either Tinker or Bancroft are. My point is that if you're going to consider Bancroft and Tinker a wash offensively and on the bases (Tinker stole more but stolen bases were emphasized far more in his era - and in the years we have caught stealing stats, they are both poor), then the only area left is defense. If Tinker comes out ahead on defense, and I think he does, then I'd take Tinker ahead of Bancroft. But neither one will exactly make anyone forget Honus Wagner and neither are particularly deserving. I'm just saying that if you're ranking them, I'd pick Tinker ahead of Bancroft - but its close.

I agree that the poem probably did influence Tinker's selection. Unlike Evers, Tinker never received more than 19.84% of the votes in any election. Not exactly a sign that those who saw him play considered him an immortal. But I don't know if I'd put Evers in that same boat. Evers did very well in the voting, snatching an impressive 21.89% of the votes in the second year of voting (1937). His support steadily grew until he ended up receiving 54% of the votes in 1945, just before his election by the Veteran's Committee. If the opinions of those who likely saw both Tinker and Evers play were so much more impressed by Evers, that should be worth noting. His career OPS+ is 106 compared to 96 for Tinker. No, he's not Joe Morgan, but I think a fair argument could be made that his selection is more deserving than Red Schoendienst or Maz.

I agree that Frank Chance is more deserving than either Tinker or Evers. Heck, he almost got elected by the BBWAA outright, falling just short with 72.47% of the votes in 1945. What I'm not sure of is whether he is deserving just based on his (very short) career only or if he is deserving because of his combined playing and managing. Thoughts?

[honus14]

If you like Baseball Prospectus's statistics:



Player Translated Stats WARP3 RAR2
Tink .254/.304/.424 82.7 544
Bancroft .258/.345/.384 93.5 559
Travis .264/.318/.456 75.5 389

If I understand these stats correctly, they make Tinker and Bancroft out to be about the same as hitters (Tink with more power, Beauty better at getting on) and TJ a bit better than either; however, Tink and Bancroft show as much, much, much better defensively, making them significantly better players overall (and Bancroft a good bit better than Tinker).

For comparison:


Ozzie .277/.355/.365 138.7 869 Way, way above those guys
Scooter .280/.347/.393 76.4 87 Defense . . . uh, ouch
PeeWee .273/.367/.411 102.9 475 Best hitter of these

[Dalkowski110]

I'll grant you that Chance should get in...barely...with player stats alone. But with managerial accomplishments factored in, Chance is most certainly and clearly deserving. BTW, when I called my Dad he also said he supported Bresnahan in the Hall, so I'm feeling kinda sheepish about that right now. Now I'll throw out two more names that I'm curious about you guys support or want to give the thumb to...
Lefty Gomez. The guy has a 9-year career peak, which is impressive, but during that peak, his ERA's are actually somewhat erratic vs. the league average ERA's. Early on in his peak, his ERA is actually higher than the league average, and it comes within 0.50 of the league average several times. He also can't win 200 games.

Dizzy Dean. Arguably the man with the best career peak aside from Koufax who had a short career, Dean barely even pitches outside his career peak (while Koufax did, he didn't do so hot). Also, Dean played in the Major and Minors trying to rerail his career for in excess of 10 years while Koufax retired *during* his career peak (one of the reasons I'm completely undecided on Koufax). But Dean was THE dominant pitcher during his peak. What are you guys' thoughts?

[JRB]

Dalkowski: your analogy between Koufax and Dean is a good one. I think they are great examples of the supernovas-those who burn brighly for a short time. I think they are both unquestionably deserving to be in the Hall. Both pitchers were dominant in league play, albeit for a short time, and both had outstanding World Series performances. Koufax also gets the added plus that he set a number of all-time records such as most strikeouts in a season (since broken by Ryan) during his four years of invincibility at the end of his career. Dean gets the added plus that he was a great pitcher right from the outset (in fact few pitchers have ever become so dominant so quickly), while Koufax clearly struggled to find himself during the first six years of his career. Dean also gets the added plus that he achieved his greatness in one of the most hitter dominant eras of all time, while Koufax achieved his greatness in a pitching dominant era, that some claim was aided by a change in the strike zone. Dean was also the most famous player on perhaps the most colorful team in baseball history, the Gas House gang. Koufax gets the added plus that some of his performances literally captivated the nation at the time, such as when he struck out 15 Yankees in game 1 of the 1963 series, or his pitching 4 no-hitters in consecutive years. Thus, Dean and Koufax didn't just have short periods of greatness, their performances during their short periods of greatness had great historical significance to the game. You shouldn't be undecided about Koufax deserving to be in the Hall of Fame, they both clearly deserve to be in it. JRB

[CTaka]

I'd like to get some opinions on where Bobby Wallace fits in terms of his "deservedness" of enshrinement. I'll admit that I don't know much about him; seems like a good but not great hitter who made his claim to fame with his glove. Yet he only gets a B from Bill James for his defense and he also seems to finish behind Wagner on the Baseball Prospectus fielding categories despite playing close to the same number of games at SS and in pretty much the same era. He's not a particularly accomplished base stealer given the era he played in. He seems to be a clearly better hitter than Maranville but not as gifted as the Rabbit in the field.

It seems clear that Wallace is not in the upper echelon of Hall of Fame shortstops. So my question is how close is he to the bottom? Is he more or less deserving than Tinker and Bancroft - both of whom had been discussed in this thread.

[CTaka]

Dizzy Dean. Arguably the man with the best career peak aside from Koufax who had a short career, Dean barely even pitches outside his career peak (while Koufax did, he didn't do so hot). Also, Dean played in the Major and Minors trying to rerail his career for in excess of 10 years while Koufax retired *during* his career peak (one of the reasons I'm completely undecided on Koufax). But Dean was THE dominant pitcher during his peak. What are you guys' thoughts?

I don't put Dean's peak in the same category as Sandy's. Dean's best year in terms of pitching runs above replacement player is his 30 win season with 50 PRAR. Koufax registered 60 or more twice. Dean's best ERA+, also set in 1934, was 159. Koufax had 4 seasons of 160 or more, topping out with an ERA+ of 190 in 1966. An argument could be made that Amos Rusie, another Hall of Famer with a very short career, may have had a better peak than Dizzy.

[538280]

I'd like to get some opinions on where Bobby Wallace fits in terms of his "deservedness" of enshrinement. I'll admit that I don't know much about him; seems like a good but not great hitter who made his claim to fame with his glove. Yet he only gets a B from Bill James for his defense and he also seems to finish behind Wagner on the Baseball Prospectus fielding categories despite playing close to the same number of games at SS and in pretty much the same era. He's not a particularly accomplished base stealer given the era he played in. He seems to be a clearly better hitter than Maranville but not as gifted as the Rabbit in the field.

It seems clear that Wallace is not in the upper echelon of Hall of Fame shortstops. So my question is how close is he to the bottom? Is he more or less deserving than Tinker and Bancroft - both of whom had been discussed in this thread.

Wallace had a career 105 OPS+, that is a very solid figure for a shortstop with his kind of longevity. Wallace was known as a very good fielder, but not really the best in the league or anthing like that. His advantages over Tinker and Bancroft would be more in longevity and hitting. I'd say he's better than Tinker and Bancroft, and probably right on the borderline of a deserving HOFer. I'm not upset he's in.

[Dalkowski110]

Sorry JRB, but I gotta go with CTaka's opinions on ol' Diz. The more I look at a comparison between Dean and Koufax, the more I think Koufax should be in and the more I think Dean shouldn't. Their careers, on the surface, are very similar. But dig deeper and you'll find many differences. The primary one is that Dean is what I like to call a "Flameout Player" and Koufax is not. My definition of a flameout player is someone who is a terrific player or pitcher from the get-go, and then quite literally either plays or pitches themselves into oblivion, then attempts a long, unsuccessful comeback. Other examples would be Dick Radatz, Tom Tresh, Johnny Groth, etc. Dizzy Dean quite literally pitched himself out, and then had a long, unsuccessful comeback. Sandy Koufax is just the opposite...after being unsuccessful for a couple years, he turns into Mr. Top Pitcher, and then is forced to retire due to an arthritic condition. He makes NO comeback attempt, and isn't good from the getgo. He does not meet with my definition of "flameout player." Despite Dean's dominance, he wasn't clearly the best pitcher in both leagues. Lefty Grove probably had that distinction. But Koufax was the best there was during his period of domination.

[STLCards2]

By position:

1B George Kelly
2B Bill Mazeroski
SS Rabbit Maranville
3B Freddie Lindstrom
LF Chick Hafey
CF Lloyd Waner
RF Harry Hooper
C Roger Bresnahan
SP Rube Marquard
SP Jesse Haines
SP Eppa Rixey
SP Vic Willis
RP Bruce Sutter

Compare Rixey and Willis' numbers with Pennock and Chesbro. I would take Rixey and Willis any day. (I totaly agree with Marquard and Haines being 1. and 2.) I honestly think Willis is a borderline, but acceptable HOFer...better than Catfish Hunter.

BTW...suprised to see somebody pick Ed Walsh as one of the most undeserving. His career numbers are very comparable to Sandy Koufax (IP, ERA+, etc.) If Walsh is so undeserving, than why not Koufax, or Dean, or Vance, or Gomez, or Rusie? All low IP/high ERA+ guys?

[Dalkowski110]

"BTW...suprised to see somebody pick Ed Walsh as one of the most undeserving. His career numbers are very comparable to Sandy Koufax (IP, ERA+, etc.) If Walsh is so undeserving, than why not Koufax, or Dean, or Vance, or Gomez, or Rusie? All low IP/high ERA+ guys?"

Walsh and Koufax cannot be compared, period. Koufax's case is, I believe, unique. For the record, I don't believe any of the other guys you listed (especially Lefty Gomez) belong in the Hall of Fame. Either that or Rusie just barely makes it.

[STLCards2]

"BTW...suprised to see somebody pick Ed Walsh as one of the most undeserving. His career numbers are very comparable to Sandy Koufax (IP, ERA+, etc.) If Walsh is so undeserving, than why not Koufax, or Dean, or Vance, or Gomez, or Rusie? All low IP/high ERA+ guys?"

Walsh and Koufax cannot be compared, period. Koufax's case is, I believe, unique. For the record, I don't believe any of the other guys you listed (especially Lefty Gomez) belong in the Hall of Fame. Either that or Rusie just barely makes it.

Hey, that it fair, but why do you single Walsh out as the worst of all of those guys? What makes him even more undeserving than the others you feel are undeserving? Just curious.

[wamby]

Sandy Koufax is just the opposite...after being unsuccessful for a couple years, he turns into Mr. Top Pitcher, and then is forced to retire due to an arthritic condition. He makes NO comeback attempt, and isn't good from the getgo. He does not meet with my definition of "flameout player." Despite Dean's dominance, he wasn't clearly the best pitcher in both leagues. Lefty Grove probably had that distinction. But Koufax was the best there was during his period of domination.

If Koufax had not been a Bonus Baby and spent a few years in the Minors and not on the Brooklyn bench, he may have been regarded as a great pitcher from the start of his Major League career. This is assuming that he learned to harness his power while in the minors.

Thena again, if he had to pitch in the Minors, he probably would have said 'screw you' to professional baseball and then go on to play for the Royals in the NBA.

[oscargamblesfro]

Wallace had a career 105 OPS+, that is a very solid figure for a shortstop with his kind of longevity. Wallace was known as a very good fielder, but not really the best in the league or anthing like that. His advantages over Tinker and Bancroft would be more in longevity and hitting. I'd say he's better than Tinker and Bancroft, and probably right on the borderline of a deserving HOFer. I'm not upset he's in.


Wallace was actually probably the best all around shortstop in the AL for its first two decades, and I get the impression that he was a much more famous guy in his own time. It's kind of weird that he could go from being at one point the best paid player in the game and one of the most respected and liked to being quite possibly the single most obscure HOF everyday player to the general public. I would argue that he was the AL's best shortstop in its history until Sewell and Appling and guys like that , though his best years were actually in the N.L. around the turn of the century...

[Dalkowski110]

"Hey, that is fair, but why do you single Walsh out as the worst of all of those guys? What makes him even more undeserving than the others you feel are undeserving? Just curious."

I'm sorry I didn't clarify. Walsh went on there because he was floating in my head at the time. If I was thinking the 1930's, Lefty Gomez probably would've gone there instead of him. My team really wasn't the "absolute most ridiculously undeserving guys of all time" (IMO, there are only a handfull who fall into the category of zero logic behind their election), but "among the most undeserving." Walsh was a representative of the Walsh/Dean/Gomez group, whom I find to be undeserving (I consider Dazzy Vance a completely different kind of pitcher, especially because he starts so late). Sorry if I seemed to be picking on Big Ed. I actually like the guy (heck, I just went and bought a T-206 card, Cycle back, of him this afternoon!), I just don't think he's Cooperstown material

[ElHalo]

My team of the most undeserving Hall of Famers by position:

C: Ray Schalk
1B: George Kelly
2B: Bill Mazeroski
3B: George Kell
SS: Phil Rizzuto
OF: Tommy McCarthy
OF: Richie Ashburn
OF: Ross Youngs

P: Herb Pennock

What do you all think?

The fact that somebody thinks Richie Ashburn is one of the three least deserving HoF outfielders just made me throw up in my mouth. My first and second:

C: Rick Ferrell (Gary Carter)
1B: Highpockets Kelly (Tony Perez)
2B: Johnny Evers (Red Schoendeinst)
SS: Dave Bankroft (Bobby Wallace)
3B: Freddie Lindstrom (George Kell)
LF: Lou Brock (Jim O'Rourke)
CF: Lloyd Waner (Earle Combs)
RF: Tommy McCarthy (Ross Youngs)

P: Jesse Haines
P: Mickey Welch
P: Don Sutton
P: Early Wynn
P: Vic Willis

[Dalkowski110]

"P: Early Wynn"

Early Wynn? He won 300 games! You can't find anyone less deserving than Wynn??? You think Candy Cummings, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Rube Waddell, Jack Chesbro, Hoss Radbourne, etc, etc are more deserving??? I guess that guy I talk to locally who thinks Steve Carlton doesn't belong isn't alone in his...uniqueness of opinion. I also completely disagree about Sutton.

"LF: Lou Brock"

Logically, this means you're fine with Chick Hafey...and forget the stolen bases record, I guess...

[CTaka]

[QUOTE=ElHalo]The fact that somebody thinks Richie Ashburn is one of the three least deserving HoF outfielders just made me throw up in my mouth. My first and second:

C: Rick Ferrell (Gary Carter)

Gary Carter? He certainly seems to be deserving to me. Career OPS+ of 115 with a defensive grade of A from Bill James. I'd put Schalk and Ferrell as more "undeserving" than Carter.

SS: Dave Bankroft (Bobby Wallace)

Scooter Rizzuto seems more undeserving than Wallace.

LF: Lou Brock (Jim O'Rourke)

Heinie Manush was just another good hitter during a high-offense period. He seems more undeserving than Brock.

[ElHalo]

"P: Early Wynn"

Early Wynn? He won 300 games! You can't find anyone less deserving than Wynn??? You think Candy Cummings, Dizzy Dean, Lefty Gomez, Rube Waddell, Jack Chesbro, Hoss Radbourne, etc, etc are more deserving??? I guess that guy I talk to locally who thinks Steve Carlton doesn't belong isn't alone in his...uniqueness of opinion. I also completely disagree about Sutton.

"LF: Lou Brock"

Logically, this means you're fine with Chick Hafey...and forget the stolen bases record, I guess...

Both of these players epitomize the idea of round numbers not meaning anything. Yes, Brock got 3000 hits. Yes, Wynn won 300 games. Neither of them were particularly great players, and certainly not HoF caliber players.

Wynn had a solid stretch from 1954-1956 where he was an ace, but not really a great, pitcher. Other than that, he was essentially a third starter for 20 years. There's something to be said for consistency and longevity, but this guy, outside of that three year period, finished in the top 10 in WHIP only 3 times. ERA+ only three times. He racked up wins because he stayed healthy; he inexplicably won the 1959 Cy Young award despite there being at least a half dozen clearly better pitchers in the league, because he lucked out into leading the league in W's on the best team in the league (further confusnig because of the fact that teammate Bob Shaw was such a clearly better pitcher than him that year). Guys with career 106 ERA+'s don't HoF'ers make unless they have astounding peaks; Wynn was never a special pitcher.

Cummings was inducted as a pioneer, not a player, so there's no point in debating his playing merits. Chesbro isn't deserving, but at least he had that 1904 season going for him. The other guys you mentioned are way better than Wynn; you can make a colorable argument for Rube Waddell as one of the top 10 pitchers of all time.

And Brock? His case rests on two things: His SB record and the 3000 hits. He didn't draw many walks, didn't hit for power to speak of, and was a lousy fielder at the least important defensive position, so his case pretty much entirely rests on contact hitting and baserunning. As far as contact hitting goes, again, he stuck around for a while, but he wasn't anything to write home about in that department; he never finished in the top 5 in BA in his career, and never once hit higher than .315. Being pretty good at something for a long time is certainly valuable and something you'd want around, but it doesn't make you a great player, and it certainly doesn't make you a HoF'er. So, really, what he's got going for him is basestealing. I don't see Vince Coleman having a plaque anywhere in Cooperstown. His 109 career OPS+ is third worst among HoF outfielders; the only other guys lower are Lloyd Waner and Tommy McCarthy (who, surprise surprise, are also on my lists).

And I really don't want to get into Hafey again.

[ElHalo]

Gary Carter? He certainly seems to be deserving to me. Career OPS+ of 115 with a defensive grade of A from Bill James. I'd put Schalk and Ferrell as more "undeserving" than Carter.


LF: Lou Brock (Jim O'Rourke)

Heinie Manush was just another good hitter during a high-offense period. He seems more undeserving than Brock.

Completely disagree on Schalk; the universal consensus among people who watched him was that he was BY FAR the greatest defensive catcher of all time. That would make him the best defensive player, full stop, in the history of baseball. Hard to keep somebody like that out of the Hall.

Carter was a fine catcher, but he's the third worst hitting catcher in the Hall (ahead of Ferrell and Schalk), and while he was a fine defensive player, so was every other catcher in the Hall (with the exceptions of Ferrell and Lombardi), and better than him (I would probably also put Dickey behind Carter, but I've some people disagree). I just don't see the case.

Manush looks worse and worse the more I look at him, and I'd count him in the undeserving crowd. But Brock really just bugs me; he's the poster boy for the "3000 hits / 500 HR / 300 W does NOT make you a great player" concept.

[BoSox Rule]

The fact that somebody thinks Richie Ashburn is one of the three least deserving HoF outfielders just made me throw up in my mouth. My first and second:

C: Rick Ferrell (Gary Carter)
1B: Highpockets Kelly (Tony Perez)
2B: Johnny Evers (Red Schoendeinst)
SS: Dave Bankroft (Bobby Wallace)
3B: Freddie Lindstrom (George Kell)
LF: Lou Brock (Jim O'Rourke)
CF: Lloyd Waner (Earle Combs)
RF: Tommy McCarthy (Ross Youngs)

P: Jesse Haines
P: Mickey Welch
P: Don Sutton
P: Early Wynn
P: Vic WillisAnd the fact that you think Gary Carter is one of the two least deserving catchers in the Hall of Fame made me throw up in my mouth. He wasn't even a bad hitter. His .774 OPS would be something like .840 in today's game. His best years would be at about .900 or above.

[ElHalo]

And the fact that you think Gary Carter is one of the two least deserving catchers in the Hall of Fame made me throw up in my mouth. He wasn't even a bad hitter. His .774 OPS would be something like .840 in today's game. His best years would be at about .900 or above.

Take Benito Santiago, and make him almost as good of a hitter as Javy Lopez, and you get Gary Carter. I fail to see how that's a Hall of Famer.

[CTaka]

Completely disagree on Schalk; the universal consensus among people who watched him was that he was BY FAR the greatest defensive catcher of all time. That would make him the best defensive player, full stop, in the history of baseball. Hard to keep somebody like that out of the Hall.
.

While Schalk was a great defensive catcher, I don't think it is a universal or unanimous decision. In terms of defensive win shares/1000 innings, Schalk's 6.75 is extremely impressive, but trails the 7.28 of Gabby hartnett and the 6.92 of ....hey, that happens to be Gary Carter! I'm not saying that defensive win shares alone is proof that Carter was better with the glove than Schalk - but it would indicate that Schalk's superiority isn't guaranteed.

But how deserving is he when you combine his superior defense with his poor offense? His total win shares (including his great defensive win shares) per 162 games comes to 17.58. Among catchers currently in the Hall, that puts Schalk at the bottom. Ferrell is the next lowest at 17.71. I said before that if you were the best defensive player ever a a key defensive position, I'd give them a pass. I don't know if Schalk is the best defensive catcher ever, but he's right there in that discussion so I listed Ferrell as the most undeserving catcher in the Hall. But after Ferrell, then I would have to go with Schalk.

[RuthMayBond]

Completely disagree on Schalk; the universal consensus among people who watched him was that he was BY FAR the greatest defensive catcher of all time.And how many of those saw all of Bench's career (let alone IRod)?

[milladrive]

And the fact that you think Gary Carter is one of the two least deserving catchers in the Hall of Fame made me throw up in my mouth.

That... ... ...isn't a pretty thought.

[Dalkowski110]

On Early Wynn...he does well with good teams. And he doesn't pitch for a majority of good teams during his career. From 1939, 1941-1948, he's with the Senators, who are dreadful except for a pair of wartime seasons. His career peak is indeed with the Indians. His off years in 1957 and 1958 are almost certainly due to poor fielding. Yeah, the '58 White Sox finished second, but only at 82-72. I completely and totally disagree with your assessment of Bob Shaw in 1959. To win 300 games with a truly crummy team for the first nine years of your career is an accomplishment inunto itself. Wynn's career ERA vs. the league average is also 3.54 vs. 3.77, which isn't bad, IMO, considering he pitched the first 9 years of his career with an awful team. As for Brock, ANYONE who gets 3,000 or more hits deserves to get in, and Brock's stolen bases also help him. You also mention OPS+, which is ridiculous considering that you yourself point out that Brock had no power to speak of.

"Cummings was inducted as a pioneer, not a player, so there's no point in debating his playing merits."

Regardless, he doesn't deserve it. Jim Creighton invented, or at least popularized in the extreme, the fastball and sinker, and he's not in (ruptured spleen crossing home plate at age 23). The sinker of course being a breaking ball. And Fred Goldsmith and Phoney Martin simultaneously developed the curveball.

"Vince Coleman"

Apples and oranges to a ridiculous extreme. Brock was team player, for one (of one million)...

As for Waddell being one of the ten greatest of all time, I've never even heard that. You're the first. He flames out after his injury tripping over a suitcase at a railroad station horsing around with fellow hurler Andy Coakley. To me, the Hall of Fame isn't about single-season greatness. It's about sustained greatness. Here, I think the only thing that will make us agree will be our points of view on what the Hall of Fame should be. They do seem to differ radically...

[ElHalo]

As for Brock, ANYONE who gets 3,000 or more hits deserves to get in, and Brock's stolen bases also help him. You also mention OPS+, which is ridiculous considering that you yourself point out that Brock had no power to speak of.

...

As for Waddell being one of the ten greatest of all time, I've never even heard that. You're the first. He flames out after his injury tripping over a suitcase at a railroad station horsing around with fellow hurler Andy Coakley. To me, the Hall of Fame isn't about single-season greatness. It's about sustained greatness. Here, I think the only thing that will make us agree will be our points of view on what the Hall of Fame should be. They do seem to differ radically...

On the 3000 hits point: We had a discussion a while back about how there's a possibility, albeit remote, that Steve Finley could hang around long enough as a replacement level player to get to 3000 hits. Would you honestly advocate for him being a HoF'er? A guy was never really, at any point in his career, even an All Star level player?

And Waddell: He led his league in K rate 8 times in 9 years. He's tenth all time in raw ERA; 22nd in ERA+ (exactly one point behnid Pete Alexander and Christy Mathewson). He's the only pre-war player in the top 100 in career K rate. The guy was phenomenal.

[ElHalo]

But how deserving is he when you combine his superior defense with his poor offense? His total win shares (including his great defensive win shares) per 162 games comes to 17.58. Among catchers currently in the Hall, that puts Schalk at the bottom. Ferrell is the next lowest at 17.71. I said before that if you were the best defensive player ever a a key defensive position, I'd give them a pass. I don't know if Schalk is the best defensive catcher ever, but he's right there in that discussion so I listed Ferrell as the most undeserving catcher in the Hall. But after Ferrell, then I would have to go with Schalk.

Here's the way I've always looked at it: In my view, when rating catchers, I like to go 50/50 with offense and defense in determining greatness. Schalk is, as I see it, easily the best defensive catcher of all time, and a lousy bat. Mike Piazza is easily the best offensive (MLB) catcher of all time, and arguably one of the worst defensive catchers in history to play a full career there. So the two should rank roughly equally (be clear that I'm not saying Schalk is one of the greatest catchers of all time; before reevaluating things about six months ago or so, I put both Schalk and Piazza in the 12-14 range all time among catchers). I've since backed off that position a bit (and bumped Piazza up in my rankings), but still, I put him ahead of Ferrell, Carter, and Lombardi.

[Dalkowski110]

Your point on Steve Finley is FAR too theoretical, and thus I'm not going to address it. Besides, he wasn't known for anything except hits. His Hall of Fame "belongagable" (sorry for word invention) tests all rate him FAR behind Brock (incidentally, so do those of Vince Coleman) in Black Ink, Gray Ink, HoF Standards, and HoF Monitor. Brock was an All-Star several times, had the little stolen base thing going on, and got 3,000 hits. Your argument is probably going to be "well what if Vince Coleman had stayed around that long?" He didn't. End of story. And Waddell's brief career peak from 1902-1909 doesn't help. And a 2.16 career ERA seems a lot less amazing when it's vs. 2.91 career league average ERA. He was great for a short period of time. He is not one of the greatest, period. I also disagree on Don Sutton (see the Eppa Rixey thread), and state my reasons for it there, along with Wynn's stats. Also, not only does Rube Waddell fail the Gray Ink Test (he passes the Black Ink Test with flying colors, the only such test...Wynn fails that test, but passes the Gray Ink Test with flying colors), but also has a below-average Hall of Fame Standards (as does Wynn, but they're very close...that said, I do believe the test to be unfair to pitchers who tossed with losing teams), and is only 4 points ahead of Wynn in the HoF Monitor Test. Sutton is behind on the Black Ink Test by a lot (Waddell does admittedly do well on the Black Ink Test), but far ahead on the Gray Ink Test, Hall of Fame Standards Test, AND the Hall of Fame Monitor Test.

[I talk to myself]

Amazingly enough, I agree with a lot of what has been bantered about here. Usually I can find a good arguement in a hurry...HOWEVER. :)

I find it disappointing that many of you are putting Maz as the two-bagger least deserving. I am afraid that listing Maz as the most undeserving second basemen shows a level of shallowness and ignorance that is often found in the modern fan, who vies the game through the lens of offensive stats.

Sure, it's usually offense that gets you into the HOF, however... there are several HOF second basemen that would have never seen the field if they had been on the same team as Mazeroski. He was THAT far superior (defensively) to not only the ones that he played against, but those that came before AND after him.

Neither Evers, Maranville, Ward, Doerr, Shoendienst, Fox, Morgan nor McPhee, would have ever seen the light of day.

I dare say that Robinson, Carew, Molitor, and Sandberg would have been moved to another position in order to keep their bat in the lineup if they were on a team with Maz on second. (and all had the skill to do so)

And one final fact remains... If the manager was a stickler for defense, then NOBODY... and I mean NOBODY starts in front of Mazeroski.

:radio

[RuthMayBond]

And Waddell's brief career peak from 1902-1909 doesn't help. And a 2.16 career ERA seems a lot less amazing when it's vs. 2.91 career league average ERA.

There's a lot of HOFers who'd like a 134 ERA+

<He was great for a short period of time.>

It seems to have worked for Koufax

[ElHalo]

Your point on Steve Finley is FAR too theoretical, and thus I'm not going to address it.

Here's one that's slightly less theoretical. Imagine a world where Mule Haas didn't exist. Doc Cramer would have been a regular from age 24 instead of age 27, and would comfortably have 3000 hits. Would he then be a HoF'er? Johnny Damon actually has at least a reasonably decent shot at getting to 3000. Is he a HoF'er?

Speaking of which: Doc Cramer. How did he happen? The guy has basically no discernable offensive skills. His /162's in HR's and SB's are 3 and 4, respectively. Couldn't draw walks. Couldn't regularly crack a starting lineup before age 27. Was fourth in the batting race in 1935, and was never again in the top 10 except for 1943, when every single notable player but Luke Appling was off at war. And yet he ends up within spitting distance of 3000 hits. Goes to show what putting the ball in play can do.


And Waddell's brief career peak from 1902-1909 doesn't help.

1900, really. Had an indifferent year in 1901, but he was the best pitcher on the planet in 1900, despite that W/L record. And, let's be honest, not many pitchers have had peaks much longer than ten years, and VERY few of those guys had peaks that even approached Waddell's.

[Myankee4life]

[QUOTE=Dalkowski110 If I was thinking the 1930's, Lefty Gomez probably would've gone there instead of him. [/QUOTE]

What not to like about Gomez?

He had a .649 W%
Won 20+ games 4X
Won 2 pitching triple crowns
Went 5-0 in the WS
Was the Ace of the mighty Yankee teams of the 1930's
Was one of the top pitchers of the 30's
Had a 125 ERA+

He's not a slam dunk HOF but I wouldn't call him undeserving either.

[Dalkowski110]

"It seems to have worked for Koufax"

For one, Koufax is a special case, IMO. He has no offpeak at the end of his career. Likewise Addie Joss. Those are the only two guys inside the Hall excluding relievers who are deserving who haven't won 200 games (except the Negro Leaguers). There, IMO, has to be a line drawn somewhere. And Waddell doesn't make it for me. As for Doc Cramer, it's another apples/oranges compairson. Did he light up the ballpark? Was he a stolen base champ? You keep ignoring Brock's stolen base numbers, as well. And Cramer is another theoretical case. I deal with the factual, not the theoretical. That's precisely why I don't say "Well, what if Karl Spooner never blew out his arm?" or some such thing. As for Waddell, his peak is not his entire career. He flames out. He repeatedly attempts failed comebacks. As for Lefty Gomez...again, no. He didn't win 200. I'd also have to say Wes Ferrell was a better pitcher, despite the fact I don't think Ferrell was deserving.

[538280]

Here's one that's slightly less theoretical. Imagine a world where Mule Haas didn't exist. Doc Cramer would have been a regular from age 24 instead of age 27, and would comfortably have 3000 hits. Would he then be a HoF'er? Johnny Damon actually has at least a reasonably decent shot at getting to 3000. Is he a HoF'er?

Speaking of which: Doc Cramer. How did he happen? The guy has basically no discernable offensive skills. His /162's in HR's and SB's are 3 and 4, respectively. Couldn't draw walks. Couldn't regularly crack a starting lineup before age 27. Was fourth in the batting race in 1935, and was never again in the top 10 except for 1943, when every single notable player but Luke Appling was off at war. And yet he ends up within spitting distance of 3000 hits. Goes to show what putting the ball in play can do.


Actually, it more goes to show how ridiculously overrated batting average was at that time, and also how many people just can't see a .290 average being bad, even if it's just about the same as the league average. Cramer was also a great defensive outfielder, BTW. The HOF support that occansionally drums up for him is beyond ludicrous IMO. Next to Riggs Stephenson as the worst player that sometimes gets brought up as a potential HOF candidate.