Jim Hegan

[Fuzzy Bear]

This brings up a point, shouldnt being the greatest defensive player in baseball history at a given position, be credential enough for a HOF berth? I know a man like Jim Hegan is never going to get in based on his work with the stick, but if the above can be shown to be true, it would seem to me it would qualify Hegan. After all, 130 + years of professional baseball have passed. If you are the best defensively over that time, better than *anyone* else, thats quite an accomplishment. (Im sure some will dispute Hegan as being the B.D.C. Of All Time also.) It seems an all defense team would have to be a pretty solid team. If you were to assemble an all *offensive* team by position I would think most of it (Wes Ferrell P being a notable exception, & of course counting Babe Ruth as an outfielder.) would already be in the HOF. What does anyone think? Should the best defensive player at each field position be in the Hall? (Not trying to hijack the Lollar thread, if a mod feels this should be a new thread, thats perfectly fine with me. )

Mazeroski is in the HOF because he was the greatest defensive second baseman of all time. Particularly, he was the best ever on the double play.

Jim Hegan hit .228 lifetime, with some power, but not the kind of power that would get you near the HOF. But he is regarded by many as the greatest defensive catcher of all time.

Is that a valid claim? Assuming that it is, does that make him a credible candidate for the HOF? If not, how much does he miss by, in terms of being HOF caliber?

[leecemark]

--Even if I accepted Hegan as the best defensive catcher of all time, which he could be although there is certainly no consenus, he would not be close to the Hall of Fame. He is a significantly worse hitter, over a shorter career, than Mazeroski or Schalk. Cleveland kept the wrong catcher when they picked him over Lollar.

[THE OX]

This is just a quickie, shoot-from-the-hip response, and should be given whatever degree of respect is appropriate.

I think an excellent defensive catcher should have a career of at least 1500 games, and average a minimum of maybe .260 with an average of 15 home runs per full season (let's say 500 PA) to truly merit consideration as an HOF'er.

Hegan was a helluva catcher, and I have nothing but high regard and good memories of him, but his .228 bat was definitely not worthy of HOF consideration. Also I seem to remember his power as being more in the 10 HR / 500 PA range.

[Cougar]

Defense at the catching position is very hard to evaluate. I'm sympathetic to the notion that "the best" defender at a given position, if it's clear cut, ought to get a Hall pass. There's some precedent for this with Ozzie, Brooks, and Maz.

However -- (1) I think it's more clear cut (by far) in those cases then it is with Hegan --- and it's not all that clear cut, and (2) all of those guys were at worst adequate batters over the preponderance of their careers. Hegan really wasn't. His admission would open to door to, say, a Rey Ordonez type that lasts a little longer. I don't think we should go there.

Another example -- for a time, Charles Johnson was talked about at catcher as having an all-time great glove, and he had better offense than Hegan (although era adjustments would dampen that). Could Hegan's admission give him an argument?

One note in Hegan's favor -- it looks from the record like he lost three years, and perhaps parts of two others, to WWII. If someone knows the particulars, please share. Many people, myself included, tend to give extra consideration for players who lost time to military service. In Hegan's case, one wonders if the time lost stunted his development as an offensive player. (This is largely unknowable, of course.)

[538280]

The HOF is for great players. Even if you are the greatest at one facet of the game, it doesn't, IMO, necessarily make your whole game great. You should have to have a total contribution such as that of a HOFer, and while being the best ever defensively at a position is a credential towards that, it doesn't get you there alone.

[AstrosFan]

I think the question at hand is not whether Hegan deserves it, but if he has the same type of credentials that some other Hall of Famers have: weak hitter, but a serious candidate for best ever defensively at his position, like Ray Schalk and Bill Mazeroski. Hegan, however, was an atrocious hitter. There is simply no way he should be in the Hall. The argument for putting in a player solely on the strength of his defense is a weak one, and adding Hegan to the list of mistakes like Maz and Schalk only compounds the error.
So why Ozzie Smith? After all, his career OPS+ is only 87. Because Ozzie was quite productive at the plate after he made himself into a pretty good hitter in his batting prime, and was a superb base runner. He also has a legitimate claim to being the rightful 1987 MVP. Bill James has even suggested that most of Ozzie's value lies in his offense. Since it has long been suggested that Ozzie is the greatest defensive player in baseball history, it is hard to see the argument against Ozzie for the Hall. I know no one has really questioned Ozzie's worthiness, but I want to make it clear that he is head and shoulders above players like Maz and Schalk.

[RuthMayBond]

Jim Hegan hit .228 lifetime, with some power, but not the kind of power that would get you near the HOF. But he is regarded by many as the greatest defensive catcher of all time.By whom? MAYBE, per game, MAYBE, but even that's a stretch.

[Cougar]

By whom? MAYBE, per game, MAYBE, but even that's a stretch.

Herein lies the problem. Lots of people would argue Bench or IRod are the best defensive catchers ever. Bob Boone and Jim Sundberg also have their supporters. Roy Campanella famously cut down two out of three basestealing attempts, an unheard of percentage. Schalk obviously rode his defensive rep to the Hall, along with his "clean Sox" mojo. (Apologies if I'm forgetting your favorite...this is just off the top of my head.)

Not to mention, there's a colossal era effect when you consider the advances made in catching equipment to take into account. Some of the older guys were working on a major handicap relative to modern figures, but I don't know of a good way to account for that quantitatively.

The point is, Hegan's far from a clear-cut choice for the #1 defensive catcher of all time. He might be the best defensive catcher who didn't have more than negligible value on offense, but that's a bit of a backhanded compliment.

You don't get as much argument with Mazeroski; although guys like Bid McPhee, Frank White, and Robby Alomar have their supporters, it's generally conceded that Maz is probably #1 amongst defensive second basemen. And Maz hit about league average for his position, maybe even a bit better (someone else can run the numbers), so while he's providing historic defense, he's replacement value or better at the plate. Big difference.

Point taken on Smith & Brooks -- I think the dividing line is, Ozzie and Robinson had offensive credentials which would make them plausible candidates, although far from slam dunks, even if they were only average defenders. The defense, on top of that, made them first-ballot inductees. You can't say the same about Maz, Schalk, maybe Harry Hooper (if you don't just blame Frisch and avert your eyes).

[Fuzzy Bear]

Hegan is regarded by many as the greatest defensive catcher of all time. He was so regarded at his retirement; since then, some have argued for Bench or Carter as the greatest on defense.

I don't support Hegan for the HOF; I brought him up because I was thinking of a thread for Hegan because of his defensive reputation, and because Calif_Eagle brought Hegan to mind. Hegan was a 5 time All-Star, and for a guy with that atrocious of a BA, he had to bring a lot of leather to the game to be an All-Star.

The All-Star selections are evidence of Hegan's defensive prowess; he was, oddly enough, NOT an All-Star in 1948, the year Cleveland went all the way, and his best offensive season. One really can conclude that the Tribe picked the wrong man when they sent Lollar packing and kept Hegan, but Hegan was a regular on two pennant winners, and was, by all accounts, an excellent handler of pitchers. A number of pitchers had good years with Hegan that never had good years again.

Let's say that Hegan were the greatest defensive catcher of all time. What would it have taken for his offense to be up to borderline HOF level, given his being the greatest of all time?

[Calif_Eagle]

I'm a native Clevelander and grew up a Tribe fan. But I dont really have a "dog in this fight" as they say, in that I have no strong feelings about a possible Hegan HOF selection. Jim Hegan was generally regarded as our all-time catcher when I was coming up as a fan in the 60's thru 80's period. I believe it was either Jim Hegan or Steve O'Neill that was selected on the all-time Indian team picked for the centennial of Professional Baseball in 1969. (O'Neill was another who I believe was regarded higher for his defense than his bat, and was a fine manager also. He probably has a better HOF argument then Hegan does.) Jim Hegan was a Tribe catcher from 1941 to 1957 with time out (43-45) for WW II. He was basically the Tribe's regular catcher from 1946 thru 1956, tailing off in playing time in 1957 then going on to play for 4 other teams 1958-60 when his career ended. He was a 5 time All-Star and his effective starting career pre-dated the Gold Glove Awards. Only twice in 17 seasons did he get more than 100 hits in a season! He hit 92 HR's in his career with only 3 seasons in double-figures & a career high of 14. Its crystal clear he must have been outstanding defensively to keep his job for so long. Playing for Al Lopez had to help too, as he was what Lopez had been during *his* playing career. I would guess Al saw a lot of himself as a player in Hegan. The whole idea that came to me upon seeing Hegan cited as "possibly the best defensive catcher of all time" was, is that quality enough for selection? Who are the 10 best defensive catchers of all-time? Who are the 10 best defensive players at all the other positions? Is defensive talent ALONE, or can it be; of such importance and magnitude that it makes you HOF worthy **without regard for the bat**? Some players that are in the HOF primarily for defense are Harry Hooper, Rabbit Maranville, Ray Schalk, Rick Ferrell, Bill Mazeroski, Ozzie Smith, Brooks Robinson (if he had an iron glove his bat alone wouldnt have gotten him there ) and even Tris Speaker, frequently called the Greatest defensive center fielder of all time. (I know, he could hit a fair bit too.) Some of the men I listed above are regarded as some of the worst HOF selections ever. I guess I am wondering about the relative value of in-the-field defensive skills to other parts of the game. We honor pitching, batting, power hitting, even base running but we seem reluctant to honor for pure defense. Is this wrong? Or is defense such a small part of the package that to honor it would be like adding long snappers and place kick holders to the Pro Football HOF?

[Cougar]

Hegan is regarded by many as the greatest defensive catcher of all time. He was so regarded at his retirement; since then, some have argued for Bench or Carter as the greatest on defense.

And since then, Boone, and then IRod. Again, the comparison to Mazeroski is instructive -- the assessment of Mazeroski has stood the test of time, while Hegan is forgotten. (The WS walk-off HR probably helped Maz stay in memory, granted.)

Hegan was plainly an awesome defensive catcher. Even setting aside all the testimonials and statistical evidence, there's no other logical explanation for how he kept his job that long with that low level of offense.

But, that could mean two things (not mutually exclusive): (1) He was such as good defensive catcher that his offensive production was rendered irrelevant. (2) He was every bit the defensive player that, say, his rough contemporary Roy Campanella was, perhaps even measurably better -- but at the same time Campy was so much better on offense that any defensive discrepancy was laughably nugatory.

Let's say that Hegan were the greatest defensive catcher of all time. What would it have taken for his offense to be up to borderline HOF level, given his being the greatest of all time?

I think one would need to be at or very near league average production for his position for a career of meaningful length; since catchers have short careers, by and large, a minimum of ten years. A couple peak years of solid production would be most helpful, but a longer, less spectacular career could work too.

Note -- if one is producing much below league average offensively, it'll be very hard for such a player to keep his job, because a small offensive advantage can offset the value of a relatively larger defensive one. This is less true at catcher than at a more "offensive" position, but it is still true.

Indeed, it may have just been unusual good fortune for Hegan that Cleveland misjudged what they had in Sherm Lollar, or else Hegan may have just been another defensive specialist that held a regular job for a few years before becoming a career backup.

[RuthMayBond]

Roy Campanella famously cut down two out of three basestealing attempts, an unheard of percentage. Where are we getting this from? :confused:

[Cougar]

Memory.

I'm not sure what the time frame was...a season, perhaps.

[RuthMayBond]

Memory.

I'm not sure what the time frame was...a season, perhaps.I'd like a little more than this to go on. Charlie Lau supposedly threw out 74% in his CAREER :eek:

[Fuzzy Bear]

A certain amount of Hegan's defensive reputation came from handling the pitching staff he handled. Hegan was responsible, in part, for the success of guys like Bob Lemon, Early Wynn, and Mike Garcia. Feller was a great pitcher, period, but these other guys developed under Hegan behind the plate.

The stolen base wasn't a big part of the game when Hegan was active, not like it is now, and certainly not like the sixties and seventies. Cutting down the running game, however, is one of the overrated parts of catcher's defense; it's how guys like I-Rod get the big rep.

Hegan has not been to catcher's defense like Maz has been to second base defense. Here's a question, though: Would the Indians have been better off with Sherm Lollar; would they have won another pennant? Or did Hegan make an overall positive difference to where he really was their best option at catcher?

[Cougar]

I'd like a little more than this to go on. Charlie Lau supposedly threw out 74% in his CAREER :eek:

I'd like a million dollars and a foot rub from Heidi Klum.

Whatever; if you don't trust my memory, that's fair enough; I'll gladly concede I might be wrong. That said, it's a tangential nitpick to our discussion.

[Cougar]

Hegan has not been to catcher's defense like Maz has been to second base defense. Here's a question, though: Would the Indians have been better off with Sherm Lollar; would they have won another pennant? Or did Hegan make an overall positive difference to where he really was their best option at catcher?

It's hard to believe that the difference between Hegan's defense and Lollar's defense, even with all Hegan's intangibles, was of greater value than the difference between Lollar's offense and Hegan's offense. Sherm Lollar was a multiple GG winner in his own right. It's not like you're sticking Keith Moreland behind the plate and hoping for the best.

That said, if anyone can make a persuasive case for Hegan over Lollar, I'm willing to be convinced...

[RuthMayBond]

I'd like a million dollars and a foot rub from Heidi Klum.

Whatever; if you don't trust my memory, that's fair enough; I'll gladly concede I might be wrong. That said, it's a tangential nitpick to our discussion.Even if your memory's perfect, it's one season

[Fuzzy Bear]

It's hard to believe that the difference between Hegan's defense and Lollar's defense, even with all Hegan's intangibles, was of greater value than the difference between Lollar's offense and Hegan's offense. Sherm Lollar was a multiple GG winner in his own right. It's not like you're sticking Keith Moreland behind the plate and hoping for the best.

That said, if anyone can make a persuasive case for Hegan over Lollar, I'm willing to be convinced...

I would have picked Lollar over Hegan, but that's kind of my Strat-O-Matic view of things. It's kind of hard to imagine Hegan being so much more valuable with the glove to overcome his .228 BA.

[Calif_Eagle]

The other thing that can be (& was above) said about Jim Hegan is his skill in handling pitchers. I dont know how, or even if, you can quantify this somehow but he caught Lemon (7), Wynn (4), Feller (3) Garcia (2) Bearden (1) and Score (1) in 20 or more game winning seasons. He caught Steve Gromek in a 19 win season. He caught no-hitters by Don Black, Bob Lemon and Bob Feller. Another thing that needs to be quantified somehow is defensive contribution by each fielding position vs hitting contribution expected from the same position. For example, in the modern game one (Of Course!!) looks at a DH for 100 % hitting & 0 % fielding. But a shortstop? Mark Belanger played years for the Orioles as a GG SS without hitting much at all. What percentages are expected from a typical SS? How much defense would Earl Weaver have been willing to give up to opt to replace Belanger with a heftier bat? How much superior defense puts a better hitter on the bench? I am inclined to feel Lollar's bat made him superior overall to Hegan, but that might not always be true in every comparison of Hegan with a superior hitter, as Lollar was a good defensive catcher. Wynn did win 20 & a Cy Young Award with Lollar after leaving Hegan. Just some random thoughts on the topic....