Fuzzy Bear
03-03-2007, 06:33 PM
Sherm Lollar never gets mentioned for the HOF. Bill Freehan gets a decent amount of mention here. I'm not dissing Freehan, but I'm a little surprised that Lollar has never had a thread about him in any of the HOF forums I've ever participated in. (I can't find one here, so I wonder if I'm missing something.)
I thought I'd see how Lollar fares on the Keltner list; it's a starting point for a discussion about his place in history:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Of course not.
Was he the best player on his team?
The simple answer is "yes" for one year, only.
In his three (3) years with the Browns, Lollar was the best position player on the team over the entire period. Jerry Priddy was better one year, and Roy Sievers was AL ROY in 1949, but he backslid in 1950. I would say that Lollar was the best position player on the Browns in 1950-51, and was probably the best player on the team in 1950. (Ned Garver, a pitcher, had the season of his life in 1951.) This isn't an overwhelming credential; the Browns were, far and away, the worst team in baseball during Lollar's tenure.
With the Chisox, Lollar ranked behind Nellie Fox (a HOFer), Minnie Minoso (an oughtabe HOFer), and Billy Pierce (a borderline candidate for the HOF). How far behind these guys he ranked is subjective. Lollar's best seasons were from 1955-59; he was an All-Star four of those five years, and the Chisox were contenders every year, finishing 3rd four times, and winning the AL pennant in 1959.
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
The best catcher in baseball during Lollar's tenure was, arguably, the best catcher of all time, in Yogi Berra. The second best catcher, and a guy who may have hit a higher peak than Berra (although he was less consistent from year to year) was Roy Campanella. That would make it hard to for Lollar to be the best catcher in baseball, or even in his league.
Yet Lollar MIGHT have been the best catcher in baseball for a two-year period, 1958-59. Campy was out of baseball due to his paralyzing injury after 1957. Berra had a superficially better season in 1958, but he caught only 88 games (Lollar caught 116). Berra had what appears to have been a slightly better season in 1959 with the bat, but that has to be balanced against Berra's park advantage (a LH hitter in Yankee Stadium vs. a RH hitter in Old Comiskey Park). 1959 was Lollar's best year, no question, and it was also the year the Chisox won the pennant. So, yes, it is possible that for a two year period, Sherm Lollar was the best catcher in baseball.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Lollar's greatest season coincided with the Chisox winning the pennant. I believe that without Lollar behind the plate, the Chisox would not have won the 1959 pennant.
Lollar had his best years with contending teams. It should be noted, however, that the Chisox consistently finished under their Pythagorean W-L records in the 1950s. I tend to view some of that as the result of leading off Luis Aparicio, a speedy hacker with a poor OBP. (Lollar would have been a better choice; he was slow, but had excellent plate discipline.)
Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Lollar contributed as a player through age 38. He was a #1 catcher through age 36, and was an active #2 behind Cam Carreon at age 37. He retired at age 38, but it is possible that he could still have contributed in a backup role for a couple of extra years, even at his advanced age.
Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Of course not.
Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
No, they are not. Guys like Lollar need extreme outside-the-books advantages to make the HOF (unusual defensive prowess, unique role as a team leader).
Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Lollar meets 29.6 of 100 HOF standards; he'd be near the bottom of the HOF on that score. He's ahead of some famous names (Pee Wee Reese, Joe Tinker), but many view those selections as mistakes.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Lollar was considered an excellent defensive catcher, an intelligent player, and a top handler of pitchers. The running game was not a big factor in his time, for the most part (his team did more running than much of the AL) and some say his handling of pitchers was a park illusion. Still, Lollar was able to catch a long time, and this gives creedence to his defensive credentials. He won Gold Gloves the first three years the awards were instituted; the first one being one for the entire major leagues. Lollar was probably the best defensive catcher during the second half of the 1950s, and Jim Hegan's competition for the best defensive catcher during the 1st half of the 1950s.
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
No, he's not. Where he ranks amongst catchers outside the HOF depends on whether or not you want to make park adjustments, and how much value you assign to Lollar's defense.
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Lollar never had an MVP-type season. In his best season, 1959, he finished 9th in the MVP balloting. His teammate, Nellie Fox, won the award, and deserved it. Luis Aparicio, however, finished second. He did NOT, in my opinion, deserve to finish that high. Aparicio was overrated, due to his base stealing, and was NOT as valuable a player as Lollar was until after 1959.
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
Lollar played in seven (7) All-Star games. This is a decent number for a HOFer. His selections came from being the second best catcher in the league, and there were years in the fifties when Jim Hegan and his miniscule BA (but hefty defense) were chosen over Lollar. Still, his raw numbers and overall credentials during his All-Star years are not outlandish, especially for a catcher.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Probably not. When Lollar was the best player on his team, he was on the worst team in baseball. It is possible that if the Lollar of 1958-59 were the best player on your team, that team would at least contend.
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Not that I know of.
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider.
Yes.
Sherm Lollar has a better HOF case than Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. Beyond that, one would have to ascribe a LOT of defensive value to him for him to be a HOFer.
I thought I'd see how Lollar fares on the Keltner list; it's a starting point for a discussion about his place in history:
Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?
Of course not.
Was he the best player on his team?
The simple answer is "yes" for one year, only.
In his three (3) years with the Browns, Lollar was the best position player on the team over the entire period. Jerry Priddy was better one year, and Roy Sievers was AL ROY in 1949, but he backslid in 1950. I would say that Lollar was the best position player on the Browns in 1950-51, and was probably the best player on the team in 1950. (Ned Garver, a pitcher, had the season of his life in 1951.) This isn't an overwhelming credential; the Browns were, far and away, the worst team in baseball during Lollar's tenure.
With the Chisox, Lollar ranked behind Nellie Fox (a HOFer), Minnie Minoso (an oughtabe HOFer), and Billy Pierce (a borderline candidate for the HOF). How far behind these guys he ranked is subjective. Lollar's best seasons were from 1955-59; he was an All-Star four of those five years, and the Chisox were contenders every year, finishing 3rd four times, and winning the AL pennant in 1959.
Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?
The best catcher in baseball during Lollar's tenure was, arguably, the best catcher of all time, in Yogi Berra. The second best catcher, and a guy who may have hit a higher peak than Berra (although he was less consistent from year to year) was Roy Campanella. That would make it hard to for Lollar to be the best catcher in baseball, or even in his league.
Yet Lollar MIGHT have been the best catcher in baseball for a two-year period, 1958-59. Campy was out of baseball due to his paralyzing injury after 1957. Berra had a superficially better season in 1958, but he caught only 88 games (Lollar caught 116). Berra had what appears to have been a slightly better season in 1959 with the bat, but that has to be balanced against Berra's park advantage (a LH hitter in Yankee Stadium vs. a RH hitter in Old Comiskey Park). 1959 was Lollar's best year, no question, and it was also the year the Chisox won the pennant. So, yes, it is possible that for a two year period, Sherm Lollar was the best catcher in baseball.
Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?
Lollar's greatest season coincided with the Chisox winning the pennant. I believe that without Lollar behind the plate, the Chisox would not have won the 1959 pennant.
Lollar had his best years with contending teams. It should be noted, however, that the Chisox consistently finished under their Pythagorean W-L records in the 1950s. I tend to view some of that as the result of leading off Luis Aparicio, a speedy hacker with a poor OBP. (Lollar would have been a better choice; he was slow, but had excellent plate discipline.)
Was he good enough that he could play regularly after passing his prime?
Lollar contributed as a player through age 38. He was a #1 catcher through age 36, and was an active #2 behind Cam Carreon at age 37. He retired at age 38, but it is possible that he could still have contributed in a backup role for a couple of extra years, even at his advanced age.
Is he the very best baseball player in history who is not in the Hall of Fame?
Of course not.
Are most players who have comparable statistics in the Hall of Fame?
No, they are not. Guys like Lollar need extreme outside-the-books advantages to make the HOF (unusual defensive prowess, unique role as a team leader).
Do the player’s numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?
Lollar meets 29.6 of 100 HOF standards; he'd be near the bottom of the HOF on that score. He's ahead of some famous names (Pee Wee Reese, Joe Tinker), but many view those selections as mistakes.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?
Lollar was considered an excellent defensive catcher, an intelligent player, and a top handler of pitchers. The running game was not a big factor in his time, for the most part (his team did more running than much of the AL) and some say his handling of pitchers was a park illusion. Still, Lollar was able to catch a long time, and this gives creedence to his defensive credentials. He won Gold Gloves the first three years the awards were instituted; the first one being one for the entire major leagues. Lollar was probably the best defensive catcher during the second half of the 1950s, and Jim Hegan's competition for the best defensive catcher during the 1st half of the 1950s.
Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame?
No, he's not. Where he ranks amongst catchers outside the HOF depends on whether or not you want to make park adjustments, and how much value you assign to Lollar's defense.
How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?
Lollar never had an MVP-type season. In his best season, 1959, he finished 9th in the MVP balloting. His teammate, Nellie Fox, won the award, and deserved it. Luis Aparicio, however, finished second. He did NOT, in my opinion, deserve to finish that high. Aparicio was overrated, due to his base stealing, and was NOT as valuable a player as Lollar was until after 1959.
How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the players who played in this many All-Star games go into the Hall of Fame?
Lollar played in seven (7) All-Star games. This is a decent number for a HOFer. His selections came from being the second best catcher in the league, and there were years in the fifties when Jim Hegan and his miniscule BA (but hefty defense) were chosen over Lollar. Still, his raw numbers and overall credentials during his All-Star years are not outlandish, especially for a catcher.
If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?
Probably not. When Lollar was the best player on his team, he was on the worst team in baseball. It is possible that if the Lollar of 1958-59 were the best player on your team, that team would at least contend.
What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?
Not that I know of.
Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider.
Yes.
Sherm Lollar has a better HOF case than Ray Schalk and Rick Ferrell. Beyond that, one would have to ascribe a LOT of defensive value to him for him to be a HOFer.