Johnny Evers?

[nerfan]

His OPS+ was only 106. He batted a decent .270/.356/.334 in the deadball era, but .334 slugging? He stole some bases, but isn't even in the top 100 base-stealers of all time! Evers was simply not that good of a player and really shouldn't be in the hall of fame.

[milladrive]

Well, he's in the HoF, so I think he's a HoFer. :p Just kidding, that's not how I voted (I went w/decent).

My beliefs are that the entire Tinker/Evers/Chance trio was elected at the same time, more based on their fame and function as a unit than as individuals. After all, Chance was really the only one of the three who, when judged on his own, had a reasonable argument for induction.

My 2¢. :)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of the Tinker, Evers, Chance trio, Evers was the best player, and by a decent margin, IMO.

Evers was a tremendous defensive second baseman; his fielding percentage in 1914 was the best ever in the 20th century for a second baseman.

Evers' stats are superficially unimpressive, but he played in an era where there were not too many runs put on the scoreboard. He won an MVP, and he was the best position player on a team that won 4 pennants in five years; the dominant team in the NL in the second half of the first decade of the 20th century. Evers' MVP came as part of the Miracle Braves in 1914; he was THEIR best player as well.

Statistical analyses vary. Bill James has gone back and forth on Evers, and on the Cub infield trio as a whole. I don't really believe Tinker belongs. I think Chance belongs because of his player-manager role on such a dominant team. But Evers is a guy who, surprisingly, did many of the things that HOFers do.

Evers can be gigged on two issues:

He was not durable, and missed a lot of time with injuried.
His career was not long by today's standards.

He's not a slam dunk, but I wouldn't rip his plaque out. His case is better than many think.

[CTaka]

Evers seems very similar to a number of the players that Alec has put up in his polls (i.e. Buddy Bell) - a good or even very good player but not one of the game's immortals that should be accorded the highest honor of Hall of Fame induction. Evers was a slightly above average hitter, a good base stealer in an era when everyone stole bases (just 3 top ten finishes) and a good (defensive grade of A- from Bill James) fielder but not at the level of an Ozzie to merit serious discussion as a HOF candidate.

Of the "trio of Bear Cubs...", the only one that I'm comfortable with is Chance. Very short career but a dominant player of his era during his peak, he gets bonus points for serving as player-manager of one of the strongest teams in the history of the game.

[Dodgerfan1]

Decent. Some players are elected to the HOF as managers, others as executives, still others as broadcasters. Johnny Evers was elected to the HOF because of a damn poem. Tinker, Evers and Chance weren't even the best DP combo of their age. At least, not from some things I've read.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Decent. Some players are elected to the HOF as managers, others as executives, still others as broadcasters. Johnny Evers was elected to the HOF because of a damn poem. Tinker, Evers and Chance weren't even the best DP combo of their age. At least, not from some things I've read.

I don't agree that Evers was elected because of a poem.

The Cubs of 1906-10 were as dominant a team as the Dodgers of the fifties; they were one of the greatest teams, year to year, ever. A team like that ought normally to produce multiple players as HOFers.

[Dodgerfan1]

I don't agree that Evers was elected because of a poem.

The Cubs of 1906-10 were as dominant a team as the Dodgers of the fifties; they were one of the greatest teams, year to year, ever. A team like that ought normally to produce multiple players as HOFers.

I was being a tad facetious by saying he was elected because of a poem, he was basically elected because of the DP trio of himself, Chance and Tinker. I doubt he would have been elected if he wasn't with that trio, and that trio was actually made much more famous than they would have been because of a poem. So, in a roundabout way, there is some validity to what I said, IMO.

Just because a team that is great for a few years does, in your opinion, necessarily mean that they normally ought to produce multiple HOFers, doesn't necessarily mean that guys like Evers should be among them. I simply don't think the guy is Hall-worthy. That's just my opinion. I don't really even think he was in the 'very good' category. I think he was pretty average, or maybe a bit above average, for the times in which he played. He had over 300 stolen bases, but he played in an era where the stolen base was common. He only hit .270 lifetime, had weak power numbers (HR, 2B, 3B) and from what I have read, he was a good/very good second baseman, but not great.

I feel pretty much the same way about Joe Tinker, whose power numbers were a tad better and who was a much better fielder, but whose BA was even lower than Evers'. I really believe the only one of the trio that belong in the Hall is Chance, and I could go either way with him. I consider him a very good/excellent player, but also not great. His record and longevity as a manager is what could possibly give him the nod for me, though.

But Evers? I honestly don't see HOF written on him but, again, just my opinion. Without him, they don't win the 1908 pennant, for sure, but knowing the force-out rule doesn't make a guy a HOFer, either. Being an MVP winner is impressive, but he didn't exactly have a monster year, and if he wasn't on the Miracle Braves, he wouldn't have won it that year, however he may have had the same type of impact that Gibson had on the 1988 Dodgers, so he may well have deserved it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Just because a team that is great for a few years does, in your opinion, necessarily mean that they normally ought to produce multiple HOFers, doesn't necessarily mean that guys like Evers should be among them. I simply don't think the guy is Hall-worthy. That's just my opinion. I don't really even think he was in the 'very good' category. I think he was pretty average, or maybe a bit above average, for the times in which he played. He had over 300 stolen bases, but he played in an era where the stolen base was common. He only hit .270 lifetime, had weak power numbers (HR, 2B, 3B) and from what I have read, he was a good/very good second baseman, but not great.

Several points:

If I gave you a year, and the stats of players, and told you to find the great players, where would you first look? If it was the AL most years, would you look on the St. Louis Browns? Probably not. You would look, first, to the Yankees. The team that won the pennant that year (in all likelihood). Next, you would look to the other first division teams, or the teams that won the pennant last year.

The search for HOFers doesn't END with the greatest teams, but it ought to START there, should it not?

The Cubs won 4 pennants in 5 years. They were the NL powerhouse for 5 years. That's a DOMINANT team; the Cubs were the first "dynasty" in baseball. These are the teams that you look for great players on.

Who might those great players on the Cubs be? Mordecai Brown, of course, but who else? Well, let's look at Evers. Evers, for his career, was 29 points over league in OBP; so was Charlie Gehringer. Gehringer enjoys a greater advantage in OPS, SLG, and BA, but he also played in a much, much better offensive environment; the best offensive environment in the history of baseball. Evers played his entire career in an environment where runs were scarce, it was a deadball era where home run power was not a factor. Evers put his share of runs on the scoreboard, given the conditions of the time. If Evers was 15 years younger, he's have hit over .300 lifetime, and there would be no debate as to his credentials.

Evers' defense was excellent; he was one of the greatest ever on defense. His fielding percentage in 1914 was the best to date in the 20th century for a second baseman. He and Rabbit Maranville set a record for DPs turned that year. That's AFTER his partnership with Joe Tinker.

For the Cubs to have won all those pennants without a single HOFer playing every day would be unheard of. SOMEONE had to be playing HOF level baseball among the position players. Who was it?

Tinker, Evers, and Chance were the BEST everyday players on the Cubs of that time. This can not be denied. Were all of them HOFers? I wouldn't have selected Tinker, but he's not the worst shortstop in the HOF, not by a longshot. Chance was great, but his career was short.

Evers, on the other hand, had a longer career than Chance, and he WON other places he played. He won the MVP away from the Cubs; he starred on his own. He won away from the Cubs; the 1914 Braves went all the way. They were a Miracle team, and obtaining Evers was part of making that happen.

Evers is not an overpowering choice for the HOF at second, but he isn't terrible, either. He's borderline, but he did things HOFers do. He won an MVP award. His teams won, and he was the best position player on those winning teams. He had an impact on pennant races. Had he played today, he'd have won multiple Gold Gloves. He's a better pick than Rizzuto, in that his offense is more valuable because of the context in which it occurred. Evers is close to the borderline, but, IMO, he belongs.

[AG2004]

The search for HOFers doesn't END with the greatest teams, but it ought to START there, should it not?

The Cubs won 4 pennants in 5 years. They were the NL powerhouse for 5 years. That's a DOMINANT team; the Cubs were the first "dynasty" in baseball. These are the teams that you look for great players on.

. . . .
For the Cubs to have won all those pennants without a single HOFer playing every day would be unheard of. SOMEONE had to be playing HOF level baseball among the position players. Who was it?



Let's look at the 1998 New York Yankees. With 114 wins, they are a candidate for the best team of all time. They won 4 World Series in 5 years; that's a dominant team. So who were the great players on the 1998 Yankees?

When all is said and done, the 1998 Yankees might end up with just two regulars in the Hall of Fame: Jeter and Rivera, with Jeter the only everyday position player enshrined.

The 1998 Yankees did not have a single player with 30 win shares; nobody on the club was playing at an MVP-candidate-type level. They did not have a single pitcher with 20 win shares. However, they had six position players with at least 20 win shares, and a solid pitching staff. If you have that many very good position players and a very good pitching staff, you don't need superstars to be dominant.

Who did the Cubs have from 1906 to 1910? Brown was their pitching superstar. However, Orval Overall had two seasons with 30+ win shares. His career was short, so he's no Hall of Famer, but he was excellent at his best. Ed Reulbach also gathered a bunch of ink during the last half of the decade.

As for position players, Tinker, Evers, and Chance were all very good, even if none of them are obvious all-stars. Kling was a very good catcher; Steinfeldt was a good third baseman who had 30+ win shares in his best season. Sheckard would gather 20+ win shares year in and year out, and Schulte also had a couple of very good seasons. The Cubs would have five or six position players with 20+ win shares each year during that span.

The Cubs of the early 20th century, like the Yankees of the late 20th century, had a solid pitching staff and an everyday lineup with a lot of All-Star-caliber players but no real superstars. The 1998 Yankees showed that it is possible to be dominant without a bunch of Hall of Famers. Thus, it does not follow that the success of the 1906-1910 Cubs means that they should have multiple Hall of Famers. Brown's the only obvious HOFer on the team, but the Cubs did have a lot of very good players, and that's enough to explain their dominance.

[dgarza]

Tinker, Evers, and Chance were the BEST everyday players on the Cubs of that time. This can not be denied.
I think Johnny Kling might of had a leg up on some of those guys at the time.

[Dodgerfan1]

Several points:

If I gave you a year, and the stats of players, and told you to find the great players, where would you first look? If it was the AL most years, would you look on the St. Louis Browns? Probably not. You would look, first, to the Yankees. The team that won the pennant that year (in all likelihood). Next, you would look to the other first division teams, or the teams that won the pennant last year.

The search for HOFers doesn't END with the greatest teams, but it ought to START there, should it not?

The Cubs won 4 pennants in 5 years. They were the NL powerhouse for 5 years. That's a DOMINANT team; the Cubs were the first "dynasty" in baseball. These are the teams that you look for great players on.

Who might those great players on the Cubs be? Mordecai Brown, of course, but who else? Well, let's look at Evers. Evers, for his career, was 29 points over league in OBP; so was Charlie Gehringer. Gehringer enjoys a greater advantage in OPS, SLG, and BA, but he also played in a much, much better offensive environment; the best offensive environment in the history of baseball. Evers played his entire career in an environment where runs were scarce, it was a deadball era where home run power was not a factor. Evers put his share of runs on the scoreboard, given the conditions of the time. If Evers was 15 years younger, he's have hit over .300 lifetime, and there would be no debate as to his credentials.

Evers' defense was excellent; he was one of the greatest ever on defense. His fielding percentage in 1914 was the best to date in the 20th century for a second baseman. He and Rabbit Maranville set a record for DPs turned that year. That's AFTER his partnership with Joe Tinker.

For the Cubs to have won all those pennants without a single HOFer playing every day would be unheard of. SOMEONE had to be playing HOF level baseball among the position players. Who was it?

Tinker, Evers, and Chance were the BEST everyday players on the Cubs of that time. This can not be denied. Were all of them HOFers? I wouldn't have selected Tinker, but he's not the worst shortstop in the HOF, not by a longshot. Chance was great, but his career was short.

Evers, on the other hand, had a longer career than Chance, and he WON other places he played. He won the MVP away from the Cubs; he starred on his own. He won away from the Cubs; the 1914 Braves went all the way. They were a Miracle team, and obtaining Evers was part of making that happen.

Evers is not an overpowering choice for the HOF at second, but he isn't terrible, either. He's borderline, but he did things HOFers do. He won an MVP award. His teams won, and he was the best position player on those winning teams. He had an impact on pennant races. Had he played today, he'd have won multiple Gold Gloves. He's a better pick than Rizzuto, in that his offense is more valuable because of the context in which it occurred. Evers is close to the borderline, but, IMO, he belongs.

You have a valid opinion, just as I do. You don't agree with me, I don't agree with you. That's how it works. I will assume you are the one vote Evers has for being deserving of HOF induction.

[yanks0714]

I have long felt that, except perhaps for Frank Chance, the Peerless Leader, Tinker and Evers were selcted to the HOF due to a poem. It gave them an immortality that exists to this day. The poem praised their DP ability....but they never once led the league in DPs. Maybe because their pitching was so good that with less runners reaching they didn't have as many opportunities. Many less astute fans think of Tinker-Evers-Chance as the greatest DP combo in baseball history. Why? Because of a poem.

I ask this: If not for the poem would Tinker and/or Evers be remembered by the average fan? I think not.

Evers was a decent player. Heck, he may have been a leader of sorts. He sounds like a smart player. He sounds like he was kind of a spark plug type guy who could get the team fired up. But that in itself is not HOF material.

Yes, he played for the Miracle Braves of 1914 and was considered a key contributor to their coming from so far back to win the NL pennant. But that still doesn't make him HOF material.

Face it. Evers was a decent, solid player on a well known successful team who, without his cooperation or knowledge, was the beneficiary of an enduring hero-worship poem written about him and two other teammates.

without the poem, Johnny 'Crab' Evers never gets in the HOF, period.

[milladrive]

I have long felt that, except perhaps for Frank Chance, the Peerless Leader, Tinker and Evers were selcted to the HOF due to a poem. It gave them an immortality that exists to this day. The poem praised their DP ability....but they never once led the league in DPs. Maybe because their pitching was so good that with less runners reaching they didn't have as many opportunities. Many less astute fans think of Tinker-Evers-Chance as the greatest DP combo in baseball history. Why? Because of a poem.

I ask this: If not for the poem would Tinker and/or Evers be remembered by the average fan? I think not.

Evers was a decent player. Heck, he may have been a leader of sorts. He sounds like a smart player. He sounds like he was kind of a spark plug type guy who could get the team fired up. But that in itself is not HOF material.

Yes, he played for the Miracle Braves of 1914 and was considered a key contributor to their coming from so far back to win the NL pennant. But that still doesn't make him HOF material.

Face it. Evers was a decent, solid player on a well known successful team who, without his cooperation or knowledge, was the beneficiary of an enduring hero-worship poem written about him and two other teammates.

without the poem, Johnny 'Crab' Evers never gets in the HOF, period.

I fully agree with this post.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I have long felt that, except perhaps for Frank Chance, the Peerless Leader, Tinker and Evers were selcted to the HOF due to a poem. It gave them an immortality that exists to this day. The poem praised their DP ability....but they never once led the league in DPs. Maybe because their pitching was so good that with less runners reaching they didn't have as many opportunities. Many less astute fans think of Tinker-Evers-Chance as the greatest DP combo in baseball history. Why? Because of a poem.

I ask this: If not for the poem would Tinker and/or Evers be remembered by the average fan? I think not.

Evers was a decent player. Heck, he may have been a leader of sorts. He sounds like a smart player. He sounds like he was kind of a spark plug type guy who could get the team fired up. But that in itself is not HOF material.

Yes, he played for the Miracle Braves of 1914 and was considered a key contributor to their coming from so far back to win the NL pennant. But that still doesn't make him HOF material.

Face it. Evers was a decent, solid player on a well known successful team who, without his cooperation or knowledge, was the beneficiary of an enduring hero-worship poem written about him and two other teammates.

without the poem, Johnny 'Crab' Evers never gets in the HOF, period.

Can't agree here.

Evers was selected in 1946 by the Veterans Committee. Tinker and Chance were selected that year as well.

According to Bill James' The Politics of Glory, 1946 was a year where there was tension between the writers and the VC. The writers didn't want to induct ANYONE, and didn't for several years, so the VC did most of the inductions (which is where the HOF gray area started).

The guy on the VC that year were all alive during the years of Cub dominance; they REMEMBERED the great Cub teams of the 1906-10 era. And they remembered the reasons WHY the poem came about. They remembered that, while active, Chance, Evers, and Tinker were the main stars of the Cubs, along with Mordecai Brown.

If there were NO poem, I submit that the VC of 1946 would have selected Evers and Chance, at the very least. And Evers is, IMO, the best of the three.

The idea that Ed Reulbach and Johnny Kling were superior players to Evers is, IMO, just not credible. I'll give Kling some slack for half-time play; that was the norm of that day for catchers. But Kling was an impatient hitter whose .271 BA was nothing special, and if he wasn't the greatest thing ever on defense, he was NOT one of the three best Cubs during those years.

Bill James has done some essays on Ed Reulbach. Reulbach, for reasons that are hard to ascertain, was, while active, poorly regarded; almost contemptuously regarded. Reulbach pitched a disproportionate number of times against weaker teams, and this, according to James, was by design; he was not thought up to par to pitch against the good teams. This may well have been an incorrect assessment, but it was how Reulbach was used. He won 19 twice and 18 once, losing very few games, but that was because he wasn't sent out to pitch against the better teams; he won 20 twice, and one of those seasons was with the Newark Pepper of the Federal League, a marginal major league. Superficially, his career looks like Lefty Gomez and Dazzy Vance, but Reulbach was never held in anywere near the esteem that Gomez and Vance were. There are a lot of guys in baseball that are lightly regarded for stupid and false reasons, and that may have been the case with Reulbach, but there may well have been something to his not doing well against the better teams.

Evers is NOT in the top tier of the HOF, and he was selected in a year with ushered in a decent number of the bottom tier. Evers was clearly NOT the worst inductee that year; Jack Chesbro easily claims that prize. Evers rates ahead of Chesbro, Tinker, and probably ahead of Tommy McCarthy and Chance.

But the selection of Evers is defensible, and whatever the effect the poem had on Evers' selection, I do not believe that Evers would not have gotten in the HOF without the poem. Evers was the best player on a dynasty, and the league MVP on a Miracle Team, plus, he was the best defensive second baseman of his time. He was elected by men who didn't need a poem to aid them in their selection; they were alive at the time he was active and recognized him as a top star on a great team. I believe that Evers, poem, or no poem, would have made the HOF somehow, given the selection process of the forties, and who was doing the selecting.

[2Chance]

Fuzzy, I just wanted to let you know that you're not the Lone Ranger here. Evers would have made it based on his merits, which you have explained well. Remember that the 2B position was primarily thought of defensive, and the voters may have even looked at his BA as a positive!

Chance probably would have made it too, thought of in the mold of Lou Boudreau, or Joe Torre today. Good team leader & manager who was maybe borderline-in as a player, but whose leadership/managerial skills put him over the top.

Tinker? Just thrown in to round out the set, IMO.

[yanks0714]

Fuzzy, I just wanted to let you know that you're not the Lone Ranger here. Evers would have made it based on his merits, which you have explained well. Remember that the 2B position was primarily thought of defensive, and the voters may have even looked at his BA as a positive!


Actually I'm not sure that 2B was thought of as being more critical defensivly in those days. I think 3B was considered the more critical defensive position because of all the bunting.

[yanks0714]

Can't agree here.

Evers was selected in 1946 by the Veterans Committee. Tinker and Chance were selected that year as well.

According to Bill James' The Politics of Glory, 1946 was a year where there was tension between the writers and the VC. The writers didn't want to induct ANYONE, and didn't for several years, so the VC did most of the inductions (which is where the HOF gray area started).

The fact that all three were inducted together strikes me that they were, in fact, inducted because of the poem.

I agree that Tinker was the lesser of all 3. I am not convinced by a long shot that Evers ever would have made it to the HOF on his own. Chance was the best of the three but with such a short career I think he may have been borderline.

I suspect that with the tension it was decided to honor all 3 players in one year because of their imortality due to the poem.

But we're each entitled to our own opinion. It would be interesting to see a poll on whether Johnny Evers would have made it on his own, without the poem...or the other two.

[Fuzzy Bear]

But we're each entitled to our own opinion. It would be interesting to see a poll on whether Johnny Evers would have made it on his own, without the poem...or the other two.

I don't think a poll proves anything.

A poll is not a substitute for research. What I am trying to find out is just who the members of the 1946 Veterans Committee were. The identities of the Veterans Committee members that year would be a clue as to what degree the poem influenced the vote.

The degree to which the poem influenced the selection of any or all of the Tinker-Evers-Chance trio is something that is knowable.

[Dodgerfan1]

The degree to which the poem influenced the selection of any or all of the Tinker-Evers-Chance trio is something that is knowable.

Fuzzy, you may have seen this on your other thread regarding this matter, but just in case, here is what I wrote and what I firmly believe. If you disagree, I'm sure you'll let me know. :eek:

"I have to say that it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy Fuzzy's request because almost anything we could find that implies that Evers (and probably Tinker too) was inducted because of a poem will be regarded as one man's opinion, one that Fuzzy, and his kindred souls, has already pretty much shown that he won't accept. He wants facts, but what facts can we really find? Will we find an actual quote by someone who voted them into the HOF saying that he did so directly because of a poem? I think not. What other 'proof' could we find to this end? I doubt we can go anywhere with this thread as far as swaying anyone one way or another...."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy, you may have seen this on your other thread regarding this matter, but just in case, here is what I wrote and what I firmly believe. If you disagree, I'm sure you'll let me know. :eek:

"I have to say that it would be most difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy Fuzzy's request because almost anything we could find that implies that Evers (and probably Tinker too) was inducted because of a poem will be regarded as one man's opinion, one that Fuzzy, and his kindred souls, has already pretty much shown that he won't accept. He wants facts, but what facts can we really find? Will we find an actual quote by someone who voted them into the HOF saying that he did so directly because of a poem? I think not. What other 'proof' could we find to this end? I doubt we can go anywhere with this thread as far as swaying anyone one way or another...."

If Tinker, Evers, and Chance were inducted in 1990, I would agree that the poem had a lot to do with it. The poem has been pretty enduring, whereas the memory of the 1906-10 Cubs as a dynastic powerhouse team has faded into memory, obscured by decaded of Cub futility and failure since 1945. No team has gone longer than the Cubs without winning a pennant, ever, and that includes the St. Louis Browns, the Washington Senators, and the Philadelphia/Kansas City/Oakland Athletics. Because of this, the early 20th century history of the Cubs as a powerhouse is forgotten.

But they were inducted in 1946. They were inducted when not just the poem, but the actual history of Cub greatness (oxymoronic isn't is; "Cub greatness") in the century's 1st decade was a matter of memory for many who were still alive and were alive at the time Tinker, Evers, and Chance actually played.

I am NOT saying that Tinker, Evers, and Chance were giants of the HOF. I don't think I would have voted for Tinker, and Evers and Chance are both kind of borderline. I rate Evers ahead of Chance because he had the longer career, but Chance was a player-manger, and he was indispensible to Cub victory.

But I believe that the poem was not the critical factor in selecting these players for the HOF. Tinker, Evers, and Chance didn't need a poem to be remembered by the VC of 1946. At least, I don't think so, and the names of the men on that committee would give one some insight as to how accurate my assertion is. I believe that Tinker, Evers, and Chance were actually remembered by the VC, which, that year, and for several years during that decade, was quite liberal in who they put in the HOF. But they were remembered as the core of the Cub World Champions in the 1st decade. They were remembered as winners. And Evers was remembered as a winner of the MVP award with the Miracle Braves. Evers, in many ways, was the MOST famous of the three.

Knowing the intent of the 1946 VC is not an easy task, but I believe it IS knowable. I don't have the money to fly to Cooperstown and check it out, but I believe that SOMEONE does and could.

Another thing I would suggest: There are NOT, to my knowledge, many HOFers that are in the HOF merely because they are FAMOUS, and most of those that are come from the television age. Don Drysdale and Catfish Hunter come to mind; they had real fame, and some of their fame came from things outside the diamond (broadcasting for Drysdale, being the 1st free agent for Catfish). Even they are defensible selections for the HOF, even if they are not at the head of the class.

[nerfan]

Fuzzy Bear, you say that Johnny Evers was a superior offensive player in his time. While I agree that home run hitting was much less prevalent, the fact remains that he only slugged above .400 once. Batting averages looked much like they would today or even better. During Evers best season, the NL batted .272. Evers batted .341 that season but that was pretty much a fluke. He only batted .300 in one other season. Evers greatest strength was his on base percentages. He had an on-base percentage of .356, which was very good but not amazing- he finished in the top-ten 5 times but never won an on-base "crown". In (IMO) one of the most important statistics, he had 727 runs created. Chance had 639 in a much shorter career. Joe Tinker had 703 :clapping while the bombarded Phil Rizzuto had 719. Evers had the most of the four, but still is not a viable HOF candidate.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Fuzzy Bear, you say that Johnny Evers was a superior offensive player in his time. While I agree that home run hitting was much less prevalent, the fact remains that he only slugged above .400 once. Batting averages looked much like they would today or even better. During Evers best season, the NL batted .272. Evers batted .341 that season but that was pretty much a fluke. He only batted .300 in one other season. Evers greatest strength was his on base percentages. He had an on-base percentage of .356, which was very good but not amazing- he finished in the top-ten 5 times but never won an on-base "crown". In (IMO) one of the most important statistics, he had 727 runs created. Chance had 639 in a much shorter career. Joe Tinker had 703 :clapping while the bombarded Phil Rizzuto had 719. Evers had the most of the four, but still is not a viable HOF candidate.

(A) Evers' offensive totals, in his time, are EXCELLENT for a top defensive second baseman.

(B) Evers' .341 season is not a "fluke", it's a career year that was aided by circumstances. In 1912, the NL introduced a cork-centered baseball that resulted in league averages going up. The entire NL hit .280 that year, and Evers had a career year that year. Evers' other .300 season occurred at age 27, a typical peak year.

(C) Evers created more runs than Phil Rizzuto in a shorter career in an era where it was much harder to create a run. Except for the 1963-68 era, the era in which Johnny Evers played in was, overall, the hardest era in which to create a run. The dead ball, the large ballparks, with huge spaces in outfields, made the game a much different game than the game of Rizzuto's time. In addition, Evers was, IMO, a better defensive player than Rizzuto, although Rizzuto gets points for being a shortstop. I base this on his .976 fielding percentage in 1914, the best in the century to date, and only .002 off the all time record.

[nerfan]

Evers, as evidenced by 106 OPS+, needs the fielding to get into the HOF IMO. His .955 fielding percentage in a league which fields .949 isn't too amazing. Good, but not amazing. Bobby Doerr, who I think is not HOf worthy, has fielding percentages .009 above league average. Charlie Gehringer was .008 above league average. Evers was good but not great. Evers is more comparable to Miller Huggins, a HOF mistake, than to Gehringer.

[yanks0714]

Evers, as evidenced by 106 OPS+, needs the fielding to get into the HOF IMO. His .955 fielding percentage in a league which fields .949 isn't too amazing. Good, but not amazing. Bobby Doerr, who I think is not HOf worthy, has fielding percentages .009 above league average. Charlie Gehringer was .008 above league average. Evers was good but not great. Evers is more comparable to Miller Huggins, a HOF mistake, than to Gehringer.

I think Miller Huggins is in the HOF for his managerial career more than his playing career. In that sense I cannot agree that he was a mistake.

[nerfan]

Good point- I meant hitting, but I agree with you that Huggins is a HOF manager, but not a HOF player.

[Dalkowski110]

Actually, Huggins was elected purely as a manager. He was not elected as a player at all. I checked this one.

[Beastay]

Bill James wrote an excellent article on Evers' case for the hall of fame in the first of his Historical Abstract books.

Among the things he cites in Evers favor are:

1. He had by FAR the best strikeout to walks ratio at the time. (He hardly ever struck out, and walked a lot).

2. He was the best player on one of the greatest teams of all time.

3. He was a great defensive second baseman.

4. He was among the best second basemen of his time offensively, and contextually to the league was a very good offensive player. (He played at a time when nobody hit home runs, and batting stats were at an all-time low).

5. He was a team leader and an offensive spark (kind of like a David Eckstine type). He was considered by many at the time one of the best players in the league.

I am really not doing the article justice, but after reading it, I was convinced that he was clearly more qualified for the hall than many others in there. He would likely not be in the bottom 30%.

Good offensive players from eras where offensive numbers are low usually do not look good by the stats. In contrast, players with good offensive stats from high-offense eras look better than they were.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Bill James wrote an excellent article on Evers' case for the hall of fame in the first of his Historical Abstract books.

Among the things he cites in Evers favor are:

1. He had by FAR the best strikeout to walks ratio at the time. (He hardly ever struck out, and walked a lot).

2. He was the best player on one of the greatest teams of all time.

3. He was a great defensive second baseman.

4. He was among the best second basemen of his time offensively, and contextually to the league was a very good offensive player. (He played at a time when nobody hit home runs, and batting stats were at an all-time low).

5. He was a team leader and an offensive spark (kind of like a David Eckstine type). He was considered by many at the time one of the best players in the league.

I am really not doing the article justice, but after reading it, I was convinced that he was clearly more qualified for the hall than many others in there. He would likely not be in the bottom 30%.

Good offensive players from eras where offensive numbers are low usually do not look good by the stats. In contrast, players with good offensive stats from high-offense eras look better than they were.

I have been defending Evers, but, to be fair, James retracted his stance on Evers in The Politics of Glory. In his most recent Historical Baseball Abstract, James backtracked from his backtracking, saying of the trio of Cubs, "I go back and forth on them."

I think James got it right the first time, more or less.

[Beastay]

I've read all three essays, and agree with you that his analysis on the first was probably his best.

Let's put it this way... if you want to redefine the Hall of Fame to exclude everyone not on the level of the true great of the greats, such as Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, Mays, Grove, etc. then Evers certainly doesn't make that cut.

However, if we define his worthiness by the others who are in there, then he is obviously a cut above the worst level, and possibly the worst two or three levels of players in there.

I would say Evers is probably better than 25-30% of players in the hall... at least better than 20%.

If we want to say that the bottom 25% doesn't belong in there, and neither does he, then that's another argument.

I would be willing to bet that Johnny Evers had more of an influence on his teams winning than did Bruce Sutter who nobody seems to have a problem with.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would be willing to bet that Johnny Evers had more of an influence on his teams winning than did Bruce Sutter who nobody seems to have a problem with.

While this, in and of itself, does not justify Evers' HOF selection, it is part of Evers' case, and is, IMO, a true statement.