Why is Tony Lazzeri in the HOF?

[AlecBoy006]

I just wonder, why is he in? a .965 FP is not good for a second baseman. He played 14 years in the league. I can support SOME people for the hall who played a short career (Kiner, Campanella, Koufax) but there's not too many. He wasn't very good offensively. He did have a good OBP and a good BA. He committed many errors too. .467 SLG- good, but look at that OPS+ not pretty at all.

I don't understand it. I don't think Lazzeri is a HOF'er.

[SamtheBravesFan]

Errors aren't a good way to judge how well a person fields. That being said, when I look at Lazzeri's range factors, he was below league average at all positions. I think most people would agree with you that Lazzeri isn't a Hall of Famer.

He must have had a lot of friends on the Veterans Committee, because that's how he was voted in.

[Brownie31]

I just wonder, why is he in? a .965 FP is not good for a second baseman. He played 14 years in the league. I can support SOME people for the hall who played a short career (Kiner, Campanella, Koufax) but there's not too many. He wasn't very good offensively. He did have a good OBP and a good BA. He committed many errors too. .467 SLG- good, but look at that OPS+ not pretty at all.

I don't understand it. I don't think Lazzeri is a HOF'er.

Could it be primarily because he was a New York Yankee?

Brownie31

[AstrosFan]

Just another Hall of Fame mistake. It happens. He was a very good player, but not quite Hall material.

[-Kyle-]

Some writers reminicing (sp?) of Murderers Row.

[Calif_Eagle]

Going strictly from memory here, when Lazzeri WASNT in the HOF, there was always a lot of sentiment that he SHOULD BE in. He was an oft mentioned candidate. My guess is the VC looked at his career, saw he was not only a New York Yankee, but that he was a 1927 Yankee & decided he should be in. His numbers seem to be in the gray area of "Is he or isnt he?" type status.

[AlecBoy006]

Well, they are just doing that because he has the FAME part.

HOF because he was a Yankee? That's crazy! We don't play favorites.

Was a 27 Yankee? Good, now we can induct Vern Law because he was on the 60 Pirates :(

[hellborn]

His RBI counts look good because of his era and the lineups he batted in.
Also, I think that the whole story with Pete Alexander is built up to make Lazzeri seem like a more terrifying hitter than he really was.
That '27 Yanks effect is pretty strong...a lot of people seem to think that Wilcy Moore was a great pitcher, too.

[AlecBoy006]

I added a poll to this. I'd like to see the people who say yes.

[Brownie31]

If Lazzeri is in Gil Hodges certainly should be. Does anyone think he would be in if he had played his entire career with the Phillies?:rolleyes:

Brownie31

[AlecBoy006]

No way is Gil Hodges a HOF'er.

A OPS+ of 120 is ugly but it's even more ugly for a first baseman.

[Brownie31]

No way is Gil Hodges a HOF'er.

A OPS+ of 120 is ugly but it's even more ugly for a first baseman.

No way is Tony Lazzeri an HOFer.

Brownie31

[AlecBoy006]

I agree with this statement.

[ElHalo]

As was said, a lot of it has to do with the fact that when he wasn't in, a lot of people always said that he should be (kind of like with Ron Santo or Gil Hodges now). He's a very good hitter for a second baseman, and the fact that he was a terrible fielder wasn't as obvious before the advent of modern defensive statistical metrics (which still hasn't really happened). If you had to boil it down to one reason, it would probably be that he's part of the answer to the trivia question "Who are the only three teammates ever to finish first, second, and third in a league in HR's?" He gets associated with the other two parts of that answer, making him appear to be more than he was. Not a truly legitimate HoF'er, certainly, and not nearly as deserving as fellow Yankee Joe Gordon, but not one of the absolute worst choices ever.

[AlecBoy006]

dgarza- I'd like to hear your argument as to why Lazzeri SHOULD be in.

[538280]

If Lazzeri is in Gil Hodges certainly should be. Does anyone think he would be in if he had played his entire career with the Phillies?:rolleyes:

Brownie31

I don't think Lazzeri should be in, but I do think he is a better player than Gil Hodges. Let's see, Lazzeri was a second baseman, Hodges a 1Bman. Lazzeri wasn't that good of a 2Bman, Hodges was a very good 1Bman, but the defensive responsibilties of a 2Bman are much larger than those of a 1Bman, I would have to say Lazzeri is still a better defensive player. He hit about just as well as Hodges-Lazzeri had a 121 OPS+ and Hodges' was 120. I just can't think of one reason why you would not put in Lazzeri but put in Hodges. There is no precedent for electing a 1Bman who is not as good a hitter as a 2Bman who you don't even think deserves induction, given that their careers are of comparable lengths.

Hodges was a great guy and a key member on a lot of great teams. But the real ironic part about your post is that you wonder if Lazzeri would be in if he played for the Phillies-well I bet if Hodges didn't play for the Brooklyn Dodgers, and have the luxury of them having a long standing fan base that truly did love their players, Hodges wouldn't be remembered as much more than just a solid 1Bman. There was just nothing that special about Hodges as a player, he wasn't a great hitter at all from first base. His BA was at about the leauge average, he got on base at only a slightly above average rate, and while his power was good, it was hardly other worldly. Like I said his OPS+ was 120. That's the same as the leauge average 1Bman in most seasons. Is that the guy who you want in the HOF? The guy who hits like the league average guy at his position?

I'm sure if I saw Gil Hodges play I would have liked him, he was by all accounts a great guy, spread the game and love of the game whereever he went. There are probably few players in the history of the game who I would choose as a role model ahead of Gil Hodges. The problem is that that is not what the HOF is about. The HOF is about ability, how good the player is. As soon as we start electing guys into the HOF because they're just good guys we lose the honor of people being elected. Living in Massachusetts I can say that there is no nicer ballplayer than Tim Wakefield. Wakefield is very open before games to talk to a little bit, get autographs, he donates to every chartiy around, makes public appearances everywhere. But he is not a great player over even close to it, he does not deserve to be in the HOF. Dick Allen, for example, was a far greater player than Gil Hodges. Allen hit for a 156 OPS+ in his career. Hodges' OBP isn't far above the league, 14 points-Allen's is 54 points above league. Hodges had deent power, but Allen's truly dwarfs his, Allen's SLG was 152 points above leauge-Hodges' was 67. Allen's 156 OPS+, if it's not in the top 20 all time, is very close. Allen was one of the absolute best hitters in the history of the game. Hodges was a solid hitter, but nothing more. Allen has a reputation for sometimes being diviseive int he clubhouse, and while this can factor in somewhat to determining HOF worthiness, it can only go so far. Allen was a MUCH better hitter and overall player than Hodges, while Hodges was a great guy, the HOF is about electing the best players-and Allen meets that standard so much better than Hodges does.

It's also equally clear that Hodges' reputatoin for being such a great player is not something that was there when he was active. It is actually something that has been created by romantization of former Brooklyn Dodgers fans. If Hodges was truly thought of as a frontline superstar by those who watched him he would have fared pretty well in MVP voting, right? There was no year in Hodges' career when he was a legit MVP candidate according to the writers of the time. His highest finish was 7th in 1957. Over his career, he had 0.65 shares of the MVP vote, which is 341st all time. We can compare that to Allen again-who was supposed to be a big clubhouse distraction and disliked by the media, well, maybe he was, but the writers still clearly had a clue that he was actually a better player. Allen won an MVP in 1972 and is 124th in shares of the MVP vote-217 places higher than Hodges.

Hodges was a good player and a great guy, but he is just not a great player, he does not deserve the HOF, and sorry if this post was off topic but it caught me as particularly striking that someone should mention how Tony Lazzeri is only in because he's a Yankee and in the same breadth saying Gil Hodges should be-Gil Hodges IMO 1. Only gets attention because he's a Dodger, and 2. Is clearly NOT as good a player as Lazzeri, though I don't think Lazzeri is a HOFer either.

[AlecBoy006]

I think it's rubbish to say someone gets attention for the team they played on.

[538280]

I think it's rubbish to say someone gets attention for the team they played on.

Yet you constantly claim things like the only reason anyone thinks Morgan's any good is that he played on two championship teams, that Bench only won the MVP in '72 because his team was good, that everyone would think much higher of A-Rod if his teams were better, that Lazzeri is only in the HOF because he's a Yankee, and Drysdale only won the CYA in '62 because his team was good?

[Brownie31]

I think it's rubbish to say someone gets attention for the team they played on.

So being in New York doesn't generate more publicity than say Milwaukee? It was probably more so back in the early 20th century.

Brownie31

[AlecBoy006]

No. My claim is that someone shouldt get the attention for the HOF for what they did.

Hodges is nowhere near the Hall of Fame. I think that someone getting attention for the HOF because of the team they played on is an excuse. MVP is different story. Because they show that they are the most VALUABLE player and that it helps if you are on a better team.

As for Lazzeri being in the HOF- I see that one as a complete enigma.

[AlecBoy006]

So being in New York doesn't generate more publicity than say Milwaukee? It was probably more so back in the early 20th century.

Brownie31

I think that's excuse that someone gets HOF attention for the team they were in. If you have great numbers, people should look at that. If you played on a dynastic team, no one will care. Or Jack Billingam would be in already :rolleyes:

[Fuzzy Bear]

I think it's rubbish to say someone gets attention for the team they played on.

They do, however, and it's not all rubbish.

Being the 3rd or 4th best player on the 1927 Yankees (a somewhat overrated, but great, team) is far different from being the 3rd or 4th best player on the 1950 Browns. Or even the 1960 Pirates. The team was greater, so the individual stars should get closer scrutiny.

The problem with the 1927 Yankees being over-honored in the HOF is NOT Tony Lazzeri, IMO. It's Earle Combs and Waite Hoyt and Herb Pennock. After Ruth and Gehrig, the best player on that team, career wise, is either Lazzeri (who had an All-Star season in 1927) or Bob Meusel (who NEVER gets a thread here).

While the 1925 Yankees were bad mainly because of Babe Ruth's misadventures that year, they had faded terribly. Lazzeri replaced Aaron Ward at 2B in 1926, and he was an instant star. The team won another pennant in 1926, and was super in 1927 in going all the way.

There are better second basemen than Lazzeri that are outside the HOF. Joe Gordon, Lou Whitaker, Bobby Grich, and possibly Del Pratt come to mind. There are worse second basemen than Lazzeri IN the HOF; he's not the worst there, not by a longshot. I see Lazzeri as the number 3 star on the 1927 Yankees, and, as such, a player deserving of HOF consideration (which he received, and then some). His selection is far from outrageous, and far better than the selections of Combs, Pennock, and Hoyt.

[AlecBoy006]

The Pirates had some good players on there.

Bill Mazeroski
Roberto Clemente
Elroy Face

Face should be in- not because he was a Pirate, but because he was a great reliever.

[ElHalo]

It's also equally clear that Hodges' reputatoin for being such a great player is not something that was there when he was active. It is actually something that has been created by romantization of former Brooklyn Dodgers fans. If Hodges was truly thought of as a frontline superstar by those who watched him he would have fared pretty well in MVP voting, right? There was no year in Hodges' career when he was a legit MVP candidate according to the writers of the time. His highest finish was 7th in 1957. Over his career, he had 0.65 shares of the MVP vote, which is 341st all time.

In fairness, this doesn't really fly. Derek Jeter is generally thought of, by the average fan, as a true superstar player, and has a wide reputation among all but the SABR crowd as a truly great player, and one of the better players in the game. But he's only got two top five MVP finishes, and only three higher than tenth (although I personally think he's deserved two MVP awards, in '99 and '06, I don't necessarily know that he deserved to be higher than tenth any other year).

[Erik Bedard]

Can someone explain to me how a well below league average defensive second baseman is of equal value defensively to a team as an above-average defensive first baseman?

[dgarza]

not nearly as deserving as fellow Yankee Joe Gordon,
I don't see that big of a gap between them. Certainly Gordon was a better fielder, but Lazzeri is about even (to me) with Gordon in the hitting dept. Actually, Lazzeri may have have been a tad better than Gordon at the plate. Lazzeri had a better peak. Lazzeri also had more speed than Gordon.
I have Gordon ranked ahead of Lazzeri, but Lazzeri is right behind him.

Lazzeri is a grey area HOFer at best. That being said, I don't think he's a blatantly "NO" pick. I have 4 HOF 2B ranked lower than Lazzeri.

[538280]

In fairness, this doesn't really fly. Derek Jeter is generally thought of, by the average fan, as a true superstar player, and has a wide reputation among all but the SABR crowd as a truly great player, and one of the better players in the game. But he's only got two top five MVP finishes, and only three higher than tenth (although I personally think he's deserved two MVP awards, in '99 and '06, I don't necessarily know that he deserved to be higher than tenth any other year).

I think Jeter's record in MVP voting, although he has never won an award, shows that he is consistently regarded as among the best players in baseball. Jeter has totaled 2.02 MVP shares and is 82nd all time, I'd bet that since the start of his career you can count the number of players in the AL who have that much on one hand (not actually checking, but I'm pretty sure that's true). Jeter's record in MVP voting backs up the statement that he is thought of as one of the best in the game; Hodges' does not. I don't see how those cases are parallel. I would say also that Jeter IS thought of by the SABR crowd to be among the best players in the game. Not as highly as the casual fans, many of whom would probably call him THE best in baseball (ESPN named him the "face of baseball" for example), but I know WS shows him deserving of two MVP awards (1999 and 2006), and he received a ton of support from the SABR crowd for AL MVP this past year (and certainly over Morneau).

[538280]

Can someone explain to me how a well below league average defensive second baseman is of equal value defensively to a team as an above-average defensive first baseman?

Playing second base takes much more skill than playing first base. You can probably find a ton of players on the waiver wire (or just move a guy from another position) who can handle first base. It's just not a skill that is rare. Second base, however, takes a good amount of athleticism and unique skills (turning the double play) to play and thus it is hard to find players who can play the position at all, never mind well. That's like the Supply and Demand reason.

Then there's another reason which is that a 2B does more to save runs for the team. What are the differences between a bad and a good 1Bman? Most of the plays a 1Bman makes are routine and are made by even the worst fielders of the position 97% of the time. It's those other 3% of plays 1Bman are involved in where there is some variance. However the same is not true of 2Bmen. There are quite a few plays a 2Bman has to make which require substantial effort. 2Bmen may make diving stops to throw runners out, they may turn tough double plays, they may run back to catch popups over their head. I think that even if 2B is not played especially well, it 1. Is harder to find another player who can even play the position at all, and 2. They are STILL making more high effort, crucial to winning plays even if it is a subpar 2Bman against a good 1Bman.

[Ubiquitous]

Can someone explain to me how a well below league average defensive second baseman is of equal value defensively to a team as an above-average defensive first baseman?


He is not.

[KCGHOST]

Personally, I wouldn't put Lazzeri in, but he does have some reasonable peak value to look at.

[Dalkowski110]

A borderline candidate, but shouldn't be in. I accidentally voted yes...any mod willing to change my vote?

[AlecBoy006]

GUYS! Where do you get Laz is borderline or not a terrible choice. He WAS a terrible choice.



Here's his BA/OBP/SLG.

292 .380 .467


If there is a reason he's in, look at those three numbers. His OPS+ is 121. No matter what position you play, that's not very good. He stole bases, had a lot of hits, RBI total not bad. No power. As far as offense, I guess he's ok.

But look at that defense. His fielding percentage is .967. Is that something you want from someone who played an important defensive position? That was the league average during his playing time. And look at it- average. We don't induct average guys in. We induct great players. Laz was good, but nowhere near a great player. Laz is NO WAY a HOF'er.

[BoSox Rule]

Player A: .292/.380/.467
Player B: .297/.376/.480

[AlecBoy006]

If you are trying to say Lazzeri is better than my man Kaline, you're wrong. here's why.

1) Those numbers you listed, are numbers from Kaline. Imagine if Kaline didn't have a decline. He'd be a lifetime .300 hitter and more. Lazzeri was out before his decline.

2) Even if we use position ajustment, Kaline was better defensively. Not because of the gold gloves, but Lazzeri played an important defensive position, and he was STILL average. Kaline was an amazing fielder.

3) Lazzeri played in the 1920's and 30s. His .292 BA is not nearly as impressive as Kaline's .297 BA because Kaline did so against much tougher pitching. The average player during Lazzeri's career hit .284. This means Lazzeri was only a little bit better than the average guy.


4) The average player during Kaline's career hit .261, which means Kaline hit 36 points higher than the average player during his career.

5) The same thing can be said for OBP and SLG. Kaline is better against his peers than Lazzeri was.

6) A lot of players not in the Hall have put up numbers similiar to Lazzeri's over a 14 year period. How many can say they maintained that level for 22 years like Kaline?

Kaline was FAR better than Lazzeri. If you are trying to argue for Lazzeri. Nice try, but not a chance.

[Brownie31]

Lazzeri was by most accounts a very decent man who bravely played despite epilepsy. He is still not an HOFer.

Brownie31

[dgarza]

His OPS+ is 121. No matter what position you play, that's not very good. Can we just think about this statement for a second or two?

[AlecBoy006]

Why should we?

[jalbright]

Alecboy, if you want to focus on Lazzeri's weakness, it's not the OPS+, but the comparative brevity of his career for a HOFer. An OPS+ of 121 is better than the following HOF 2B: Evers, Frisch, Herman, Doerr, Schoedienst, Fox, McPhee, Mazeroski and Sandberg.

Jim Albright

[AlecBoy006]

Did you forget he skipped his decline?

So, it could've gone worse.

But unlike Lazzeri- Maz was good definsively, Doerr was good offensively and kills Laz on defense. Sandberg- well, he had power too. But not the best at getting on base.

[jalbright]

No, Alec, I didn't. The point that you completely missed is that it isn't his OPS+ that is the problem, it's the brevity of his career. There, I bolded it in hopes you wouldn't miss the point a second time. In fact, your response goes in exactly the direction of my point by noting that Lazzeri missed his decline phase.

Jim Albright

[AlecBoy006]

It is his problem. He had a couple good OPS+ seasons, but brevity of his career has nothing to do with it. You can't post three OPS+ seasons over 130 and expect to get in the HOF. Laz got lucky.

[dgarza]

It is his problem. He had a couple good OPS+ seasons, but brevity of his career has nothing to do with it. You can't post three OPS+ seasons over 130 and expect to get in the HOF. Laz got lucky.
First of all Lazzeri had at least 4 130+ OPS+ seasons.
And secondly, about 1/2 of the HOF 2B had 3 or less 130+ OPS+ seasons, so you can get in with 3 or less without really being an exception.
Lazzeri's weakness is primarily his defense. His 2nd weakness is his realatively shorter career. His offense is not his weakness at all.

[jalbright]

It is his problem. He had a couple good OPS+ seasons, but brevity of his career has nothing to do with it. You can't post three OPS+ seasons over 130 and expect to get in the HOF. Laz got lucky.

Then why are there nine HOF 2B with OPS+ that are lower, pray tell?

Like dgarza says, if you want to attack his defense and/or the brevity of his career, you've got a real point. The OPS+ argument you make shows little understanding of what makes a HOF 2B, IMO.

Jim Albright

[tearforamariner]

Then why are there nine HOF 2B with OPS+ that are lower, pray tell?

Like dgarza says, if you want to attack his defense and/or the brevity of his career, you've got a real point. The OPS+ argument you make shows little understanding of what makes a HOF 2B, IMO.

Jim Albright


I think what AlecBoy is trying to say is that, for a guy without an outstanding glove who had a short career, his offense should be something special do deserve being a Hall of Famer, which it clearly isn't. He has used all three of these arguments, so I assume he meant them to be part of the same argument.

[538280]

I think what AlecBoy is trying to say is that, for a guy without an outstanding glove who had a short career, his offense should be something special do deserve being a Hall of Famer, which it clearly isn't. He has used all three of these arguments, so I assume he meant them to be part of the same argument.

That's not what he said, his post had no mention of Lazzeri's glove prior to the OPS+ comment. Alec said about Lazzeri's OPS+ that "No matter what position you play, that's not very good." His argument was directly referring to the OPS+ and how he viewed that as not HOF caliber from Lazzeri's position (second base).

[tearforamariner]

That's not what he said, his post had no mention of Lazzeri's glove prior to the OPS+ comment. Alec said about Lazzeri's OPS+ that "No matter what position you play, that's not very good." His argument was directly referring to the OPS+ and how he viewed that as not HOF caliber from Lazzeri's position (second base).

Well then, he really needs to re-think that.

[dgarza]

That's not what he said, his post had no mention of Lazzeri's glove prior to the OPS+ comment. Alec said about Lazzeri's OPS+ that "No matter what position you play, that's not very good." His argument was directly referring to the OPS+ and how he viewed that as not HOF caliber from Lazzeri's position (second base).
He's saying that's not HOF caliber, but he's also saying that's not even AS caliber. Well, actually he didn't "say" what caliber it was except "not very good." Even if it's not HOF caliber by his definitions, it is still "very good". Don't tell me it "just above average" or "bad".

[AlecBoy006]

Ahem- I posted he had a .967 fp in the first thread. Check again.

[CTaka]

I wouldn't put Lazzeri in the Hall, but it obviously isn't because of is OPS+. Clearly, based on OPS+ alone, I think he would be a deserving Hall of Famer. But since we don't (or probably shouldn't) base those decisions on a single stat, it does come down to a short career and poor defense for one of the game's "immortals" - to such an extent that even a fine OPS+ isn't enough to validate him in my opinion.

Alec points out his .967 fielding percentage but doesn't say anything about it. It certainly isn't horrible (right around league average) for his era, it just wasn't noteworthy. I'm not so concerned about his fielding percentage being at league average. But when you look at his range factor being 15 points below league average or his fielding RAA2 comes out to -17, those are bigger indications to me that he wasn't a strong fielder, more so than only looking at fielding percentage alone and forming an opinion. I don't get that sense if I only looked at fielding percentage and nothing else. Bill James grades his defense as a "C", and that's not enough in my book to offset the short career.

[AlecBoy006]

I wouldn't put Lazzeri in the Hall, but it obviously isn't because of is OPS+. Clearly, based on OPS+ alone, I think he would be a deserving Hall of Famer. But since we don't (or probably shouldn't) base those decisions on a single stat, it does come down to a short career and poor defense for one of the game's "immortals" - to such an extent that even a fine OPS+ isn't enough to validate him in my opinion.

Alec points out his .967 fielding percentage but doesn't say anything about it. It certainly isn't horrible (right around league average) for his era, it just wasn't noteworthy. I'm not so concerned about his fielding percentage being at league average. But when you look at his range factor being 15 points below league average or his fielding RAA2 comes out to -17, those are bigger indications to me that he wasn't a strong fielder, more so than only looking at fielding percentage alone and forming an opinion. I don't get that sense if I only looked at fielding percentage and nothing else. Bill James grades his defense as a "C", and that's not enough in my book to offset the short career.

I'd call a .967 FP horrible. No matter what position you look at it.

The following HOF second baseman have a higher Fp than Lazzeri


Rod Carew
Bobby Doerr
Frankie Frisch
Ryne Sandberg
Joe Morgan
Red Schoendienst
Eddie Collins (surprisingly by only two points)


And those are just HOF second baseman


Lou Whitaker
Joe Gordon
Bobby Grich

All should be HOF'ers. All of them better than Laz.


Point being: It's actually pretty bad.

[Ubiquitous]

I'd call a .967 FP horrible. No matter what position you look at it.

The following HOF second baseman have a higher Fp than Lazzeri


Rod Carew
Bobby Doerr
Frankie Frisch
Ryne Sandberg
Joe Morgan
Red Schoendienst
Eddie Collins (surprisingly by only two points)


And those are just HOF second baseman


Lou Whitaker
Joe Gordon
Bobby Grich

All should be HOF'ers. All of them better than Laz.


Point being: It's actually pretty bad.


The point actually being that as the years go by fielding inmproves. If you will notice you will see that the names ahead of him are modern players. While a close contemporary like Collins is rather close. When Tony retired he had the 9th highest FP% for second basemen with at least 1000 games. .007 behind Max Carey who was in first. If you knock it up to 1400 games he rises to 5th.

[Dalkowski110]

"I'd call a .967 FP horrible."

You aren't factoring in the vs. League Average difference, methinks. It's precisely ONE POINT below league average. While he may have been a slightly below-average fielder, he certainly wasn't horrible. His range factor vs. League Average is rather disappointing...5.35 vs. 5.50. But his fielding percentage is NOT terrible for the era he played in. You can't judge Lazzeri by today's standards and proclaim him "horrible" as a fielder. You have to go back and look at what the other guys were doing (aka the league average), THEN you can come back and pronounce judgement.

[ElHalo]

I don't see that big of a gap between them. Certainly Gordon was a better fielder, but Lazzeri is about even (to me) with Gordon in the hitting dept. Actually, Lazzeri may have have been a tad better than Gordon at the plate. Lazzeri had a better peak. Lazzeri also had more speed than Gordon.
I have Gordon ranked ahead of Lazzeri, but Lazzeri is right behind him.

Right, they're not too far apart on offense, and I do have Lazzeri as being better. But Gordon is waaaaaaaaaayyyyyy ahead of Lazzeri, because Lazzeri is a pretty indifferent defensive fielder, while Joe Gordon is almost (some would even say is actually) on a defensive par with guys like Bill Mazeroski and Bid McPhee.

[AstrosFan]

The point actually being that as the years go by fielding inmproves. If you will notice you will see that the names ahead of him are modern players. While a close contemporary like Collins is rather close. When Tony retired he had the 9th highest FP% for second basemen with at least 1000 games. .007 behind Max Carey who was in first. If you knock it up to 1400 games he rises to 5th.

Do you mean Maxie Bishop?

[Ubiquitous]

Do you mean Maxie Bishop?


Just checking to see if you are reading.

[CTaka]

I'd call a .967 FP horrible. No matter what position you look at it.

The following HOF second baseman have a higher Fp than Lazzeri


Rod Carew
Bobby Doerr
Frankie Frisch
Ryne Sandberg
Joe Morgan
Red Schoendienst
Eddie Collins (surprisingly by only two points)


And those are just HOF second baseman


Lou Whitaker
Joe Gordon
Bobby Grich

All should be HOF'ers. All of them better than Laz.


Point being: It's actually pretty bad.

I'd call .967 around average....if you consider that .968 was the actual league average.

I never realized that Lazzeri played in the same league and era as Joe Morgan. I've learned a lot of new stuff on Fever.:clapping

[AlecBoy006]

They didn't play in the same eras, but Morgan is one of the many second baseman who outmatch Lazzeri.

And, that proved Laz was below average.

Remember- Moragn was inducted in 90, Laz 91.

Point being- if 2B could play better defense before Laz, and get in before him- should LAz be in?

[Ubiquitous]

They didn't play in the same eras, but Morgan is one of the many second baseman who outmatch Lazzeri.

And, that proved Laz was below average.

Remember- Moragn was inducted in 90, Laz 91.

Point being- if 2B could play better defense before Laz, and get in before him- should LAz be in?


That isn't a point.

Tony played well before Morgan, so I have no idea how Morgan and Tony's induction year has to do with anything.

[CTaka]

They didn't play in the same eras, but Morgan is one of the many second baseman who outmatch Lazzeri.

And, that proved Laz was below average.

Remember- Moragn was inducted in 90, Laz 91.

Point being- if 2B could play better defense before Laz, and get in before him- should LAz be in?

Gotcha. Era adjustments are based on HOF induction dates. Thanks for the clarification.

Probably should start another thread after Lazzeri to push for kicking Bid McPhee out of the Hall of Fame. His fielding percentage was only .944. And he was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 2000. The league average fielding percentage in 2000 was .987, so he must have been way below "horrible". Granted that the league average was .919 during his era, but now that we going by induction dates for era adjustments...kick him out now! :p

Alec's logic is at least unique.

[Dalkowski110]

"They didn't play in the same eras, but Morgan is one of the many second baseman who outmatch Lazzeri.

And, that proved Laz was below average.

Remember- Moragn was inducted in 90, Laz 91.

Point being- if 2B could play better defense before Laz, and get in before him- should LAz be in?"

Could you completely and totally rephrase that? I literally have no idea what you're trying to say, what your point is, or even if you're trying to make a point. I'm not trying to insult you...just take some more time in typing out your responses to make them understandable. Perhaps then we could have valid debate versus all the stuff I'm seeing above this post...

[CTaka]

They didn't play in the same eras, but Morgan is one of the many second baseman who outmatch Lazzeri.

And, that proved Laz was below average.

Remember- Moragn was inducted in 90, Laz 91.

Point being- if 2B could play better defense before Laz, and get in before him- should LAz be in?

Alec, this is the thrust of why people don't understand your post: You can't make a blanket statement like "a .967 fielding percentage for a 2B is horrible" unless you know what era they played. During the time he played, it was pretty much right at league average. If he played in Joe Morgan's era, it would be about 10 points below league average. If he were playing in today's game, .967 would be around 15 points below league average. In Bid McPhee's time, someone with a .967 fielding percentage would be considered the greatest defensive 2B in the history of the game, as he would be a whopping 48 points above league average.

In other words, you can't make a blanket statement like a .967 fielding percentage is either good or bad. It depends on what era you are talking about. Just as you can't say that a .300 batting average is good or bad. In 1908 or 1968, it would be a tremendous accomplishment, as that would be about 43-45 points above average. In 1894, that .300 hitter would be 21 points BELOW league average.

And the year of their HOF induction has absolutely nothing to do with the era they played in.

Does that make sense Alec?

[Erik Bedard]

Alec, you were on to something when you said that Lazzeri had no decline phase. Then you said something about Morgan and Lazzeri's induction years, and screwed it all up. You're right, but for the wrong reasons.

[RuthMayBond]

Joe Gordon is almost (some would even say is actually) on a defensive par with guys like Bill Mazeroski and Bid McPhee.Some would even actually say that Mike Schmidt should have never made it to the big leagues, though

[AlecBoy006]

HERE is what I am trying to say.

If guys with better FP get in before Lazzeri, should Laz be in?

[Ubiquitous]

Well Babe Ruth got in on the first year should anybody who cannot match Babe's home run output or RBI output or AVG output be in the hall?

[AlecBoy006]

Yes. But that's a little ridiculous.

[Dalkowski110]

It is ridiculous, isn't it? It's also the logic you're using.

[dgarza]

HERE is what I am trying to say.

If guys with better FP get in before Lazzeri, should Laz be in?
Well that knocks Rogers Hornsby out because Eddie Collins got in before him & with a better FP. Same goes for Joe Morgan because he couldn't match Jackie Robinson's FP.

[AlecBoy006]

Ok, maybe that logic is over the top.

But- Lazzeri's FP was 1 point below league average.

How could we let a below average fielder into the Hall? And nothing too special on offense, plus he had no decline.

Atleast Mcphee lasted longer.

[ElHalo]

Ok, maybe that logic is over the top.

But- Lazzeri's FP was 1 point below league average.

How could we let a below average fielder into the Hall? And nothing too special on offense, plus he had no decline.

Atleast Mcphee lasted longer.

This is getting ridiculous. Sometimes, you have to give up on an argument when it's failing you.

For a second baseman, his offense was special. Yes, he's a below average fielder. So is Derek Jeter, but he's making the Hall.

[AlecBoy006]

His offense was nothing monster-esque. Pretty good, but only for a few years.

[Brooklyn]

I voted yes. I had him as borderline, leaning towards no, but Alec's lack of argument against him actually convinced me he belongs

[tearforamariner]

I voted yes. I had him as borderline, leaning towards no, but Alec's lack of argument against him actually convinced me he belongs

That's ridiculous. Yes, Alec's argument is not strong, however how does that convince you he belongs.

Offensively: Good, at times Very Good, but not Great.

Longevity: None. Short career, no visible peak.

Defensively: Average at best, Below Average by most accounts.



AlecBoy might not have argued very well, but it's clear this guy should not be a HoFer.

[Dalkowski110]

"But- Lazzeri's FP was 1 point below league average.

How could we let a below average fielder into the Hall?"

Uh, the aforementioned Derek Jeter, along with the already inducted George Brett both have below-average fielding percentages...perhaps you want to approach Lazzeri from another angle?

[Edgartohof]

Since when is a 121 OPS+ horrible?

First off, just by its definition, it is better than average, so it CAN'T be horrible no matter how you look at it.

And second of all, a 121 OPS+ from a 2Bman is QUITE good.

I mean look at this:

OPS+ of 2Bmen in 2006
132
127
127
118
112
102
100
--------
Only 7 regular 2Bmen had a 100+ OPS+ last season - here's the rest
--------
97
97
97
96
96
94
93
91
91
90
89
88
85
85
85
82
81
78
75
74

Seeing a pattern here. The average OPS+ for a secondbaseman was somewhere around 90 (if even).

[tearforamariner]

"But- Lazzeri's FP was 1 point below league average.

How could we let a below average fielder into the Hall?"

Uh, the aforementioned Derek Jeter, along with the already inducted George Brett both have below-average fielding percentages...perhaps you want to approach Lazzeri from another angle?


Actually, Derek Jeter's fielding percentage is above-average, just for clarification's sake.

George Brett is a bad comparison because, as AlecBoy has said repeatedly, Lazzeri has no longevity and little offense, two things Brett has a lot of.

Now, I don't think FP is the best way to measure defense, but I hate all defensive stats, so IMO it's as good as any.

[Ubiquitous]

Part of Tony's longevity issues stem fron the organizational structure of baseball at the time and the other part from his malady. Tony was playing in the PCL in 1922. He wouldn't play for a major league team until 1926. That year he was the Yankees fulltime second basemen from the get go and he performed like a major leaguer. In all probability if was playing nowadays he probably would have gotten called up in 1924 or so and had about 300 more games to his totals. 300 games would move Tony into the top 10 in terms of total games for a second basemen at that time. Without it he was 18th. Depending on how many games he had played he could have risen all the way up to 6th with this. If he didn't have epilepsy he would have definitely been in the majors sooner. The Chicago Cubs actually had first crack at him and they passed because of it. Then so did the Reds. The Yankees after much hemming and hawing finally ponied up the dough it required to pry him from the Seals.

[Brooklyn]

That's ridiculous. Yes, Alec's argument is not strong, however how does that convince you he belongs.

Offensively: Good, at times Very Good, but not Great.

Longevity: None. Short career, no visible peak.

Defensively: Average at best, Below Average by most accounts.



AlecBoy might not have argued very well, but it's clear this guy should not be a HoFer.

I was being somewhat sarcastic. The big knocks against him are his poor defense and the shortness of his career. Going through the points in this thread, his defense is a lot closer to average then poor. His brevity is still an issue. While he is clearly outclassed by the better second basemen in the Hall, he compares well with the lower tier.

[Dodgerfan1]

Nah. He doesn't belong, IMO. He had some nice years, but overall, he shouldn't be enshrined. Hell, his most famous AB was a strikeout! If they ever clean up the Hall, they should take Poosh 'em Up Tony and Poosh 'em OUT.

[CTaka]

The poll seems to be supporting the contention that Lazzeri is not a strong candidate for the hall. And I voted no myself. I think it has been pretty well established that an OPS+ of 121 is certainly worthy of a HOF 2b. But that is offset with a short career and thus lacks the decline phase. This may be mitigated if Tony were a top of the line defender, but he wasn't.

While Alec's logic is off, he comes to the same conclusion as the majority of poll responders here. But I think it is important to point out the inconsistencies of the argument or they could just as easily result in misleading conclusions the next time. Statements like "an OPS+ of 121 is not very good, regardless of position" does not match up with the facts at hand. Or making a blanket statement such as "a .967 fielding percentage is horrible" without taking into consideration the position and era could simply be wrong. Or making era comparisons based on the year they were inducted into the Hall instead of the era they played in.

So I maintain that Lazzeri is not a particularly good candidate for the Hall. But it clearly is not based on his OPS+ (that is probably his strongest argument) or that his fielding percentage was horrible when it was just about at league average. He seemed like a very average fielder (Bill James gives him a defensive grade of "C" btw) and he had a short career, both of which work against him.

[Dodgerfan1]

The poll seems to be supporting the contention that Lazzeri is not a strong candidate for the hall. And I voted no myself. I think it has been pretty well established that an OPS+ of 121 is certainly worthy of a HOF 2b. But that is offset with a short career and thus lacks the decline phase. This may be mitigated if Tony were a top of the line defender, but he wasn't.

While Alec's logic is off, he comes to the same conclusion as the majority of poll responders here. But I think it is important to point out the inconsistencies of the argument or they could just as easily result in misleading conclusions the next time. Statements like "an OPS+ of 121 is not very good, regardless of position" does not match up with the facts at hand. Or making a blanket statement such as "a .967 fielding percentage is horrible" without taking into consideration the position and era could simply be wrong. Or making era comparisons based on the year they were inducted into the Hall instead of the era they played in.

So I maintain that Lazzeri is not a particularly good candidate for the Hall. But it clearly is not based on his OPS+ (that is probably his strongest argument) or that his fielding percentage was horrible when it was just about at league average. He seemed like a very average fielder (Bill James gives him a defensive grade of "C" btw) and he had a short career, both of which work against him.

If any player should be inducted primarily because he batted in the middle of 'Murderer's Row', how about Bob Meusel instead of Poosh 'em out Tony? (I know that's not his REAL nickname!) I know this sentiment is nothing new, but he's more deserving than Lazzeri, who probably wouldn't be in the Hall if not for being a part of that monster lineup. Just my opinion, anywho.

[AlecBoy006]

He had a short career. As I said, I can support SOME short careers for the hall. But he didn't have insane numbers over his time. His OPS+ is 119. He NEVER led the league in anything, and his OBP is 5 points below the league average. I say no to Bob Meusel.

EDIT: I stand corrected, I did see he led a couple things in 1925, but one goos season ain't gonna get you in.

[RuthMayBond]

He had a short career. As I said, I can support SOME short careers for the hall. But he didn't have insane numbers over his time. His OPS+ is 119. He NEVER led the league in anything, and his OBP is 5 points below the league average. I say no to Bob Meusel.And he was a corner OF

[AlecBoy006]

EXACTLY. A 119 OPS+ is terrible for a corner OF. If some outfielder is supposed to make alot of outs, he sucked defensively, too. His FP is 9 points below the league average.

[Dodgerfan1]

He had a short career. As I said, I can support SOME short careers for the hall. But he didn't have insane numbers over his time. His OPS+ is 119. He NEVER led the league in anything, and his OBP is 5 points below the league average. I say no to Bob Meusel.

I say no to Meusel too, just pointing out that I think he's a better 'Murderer's Row' choice for the HOF than Lazzeri. I didn't explain that too well. Neither truly belong, though, IMHO.

[RuthMayBond]

Write down this date and time in history. I actually pretty much agreed with Alec :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[AlecBoy006]

This ain't the first time. You and I agreed on Purkey in 62.

[Dodgerfan1]

This ain't the first time. You and I agreed on Purkey in 62.

Let's see.... how many posts has Alecboy made? 2 out of 1590 isn't bad! :-)

[AlecBoy006]

Maybe I'm starting to turn the tide, eh? :-)

[RuthMayBond]

Maybe I'm starting to turn the tide, eh? :-)I'm building the bomb shelter, the apocalypse can't be far behind :laugh :laugh

[dgarza]

. A 119 OPS+ is terrible for a corner OF.
I'ts generally not HOF material, but it's not terrible, unless they've revised the OPS+ scale without telling us...

[538280]

If any player should be inducted primarily because he batted in the middle of 'Murderer's Row', how about Bob Meusel instead of Poosh 'em out Tony? (I know that's not his REAL nickname!) I know this sentiment is nothing new, but he's more deserving than Lazzeri, who probably wouldn't be in the Hall if not for being a part of that monster lineup. Just my opinion, anywho.

Meusel IMO was not more deserving than Lazzeri. Lazzeri hit essentially the same as Meusel from second base, while Meusel was a corner OF. Lazzeri's 1929 actually is one hell of a hitting season from second base; it matches right up with seasons from the all time greats at the position. I wouldn't quite support Lazzeri, but he's far from the worst in the HOF and he's much better than Meusel.

[yanks0714]

Ok, maybe that logic is over the top.

But- Lazzeri's FP was 1 point below league average.

How could we let a below average fielder into the Hall? And nothing too special on offense, plus he had no decline.

Atleast Mcphee lasted longer.

Alec, you're a Ralph Kiner fan, aren't you? Well, Ralph's FP was .975....the LGFP was .980.
Do you wanna kick Kiner out of the HOF for his poor defense.

[AlecBoy006]

No. Because Kiner was out of control on offense. Lazzeri didn't have great O.

[AstrosFan]

Looks like you need to organize your thoughts better. Let people know right off the bat that you intend to argue that one needs a certain amount of offense to make up for below average defense, then argue that Lazzeri did not have the offensive production required. Just a little bit of organization will help your arguments come across much better.

[AlecBoy006]

Kiner played poor defense, but atleast he had SOME offense to make up for it. And who knows, maybe he'd be better if he didn't retire so early. Or maybe not. But it's quite clear, without any necessary explanation, that he was one of the games greatest homerun hitters.

[Erik Bedard]

Lazzeri DID have good offense, especially from a 2Bman. HOWEVER, his defense was below average, and his career was short, causing his career rate stats to be skewed by not having a real decline phase. THEREFORE, he is not a deserving HoFer. If that doesn't sum up this argument in three sentences, then it's not possible to sum up this arguement in three sentences. And any argument that can't be summed up in three sentences is not one worth having.

[AlecBoy006]

Even if we were to accept Lazzeri had good offense, that STILL is nothing HOF like except his BA/OBP/SLG- which is his biggest break IMO.

[ElHalo]

And any argument that can't be summed up in three sentences is not one worth having.

Now this just isn't true.

Alternative Minimum Tax... for or against? Discuss.

Any three sentance or less argument is going to be hopelessly simplistic, to the point of uselessness.

[Erik Bedard]

Exactly. I was attempting sarcasm.

[Dodgerfan1]

Now this just isn't true.

Alternative Minimum Tax... for or against? Discuss.

Any three sentance or less argument is going to be hopelessly simplistic, to the point of uselessness.

Most arguments that have the truth on their side don't need more than two or three sentences.

[jalbright]

We're not going to discuss any further how long an argument must be to be worthy. That's far too much of a digression to be permitted to go on any longer. Hereafter, any posts or portions thereof touching on this aspect of the discussion to date will be deleted. Repeated violations will be subject to further use of my moderator powers.

Jim Albright

[nerfan]

Tony Lazzeri

When you boil it down, all it is is Yankee Mystique...

If Lazzeri is in the Hall, so should be Donnie Baseball, who was far better than Lazzeri.

[538280]

Tony Lazzeri

When you boil it down, all it is is Yankee Mystique...

If Lazzeri is in the Hall, so should be Donnie Baseball, who was far better than Lazzeri.

I don't think he was. I wouldn't put either in the HOF but I might rank Lazzeri higher. Mattingly had a 127 OPS+ and Lazzeri a 121. Based on the positions they played I'd say Lazzeri may have been a more valuable offensive player. Mattingly had some really good peak seasons, but none were really as good as Lazzeri in 1929. Mattingly's best hitting seasons from first base really aren't much different than Lazzeri's from second. Mattingly had half of his (short anyway) career where he was probably a below average player. Lazzeri has a career of about the length but was a good player throughout. I wouldn't quite put Lazzeri in the HOF but I think he's getting a significant short shrift on this thread-he's not an autmatic NO to rank with George Kelly or Fred Lindstrom.

[Old Sweater]

Has there been a poll like this on Bobby Doerr?

[Erik Bedard]

Yes, I'm almost positive there has.

[Dodgerfan1]

My list of second baseman who don't belong in the Hall are:

Mazeroski
Lazzeri
Evers
Doerr
Schoendienst
Fox
McPhee

I don't know enough about Frank Grant to make a decision on him. May have missed one or two....

[AlecBoy006]

I think Fox belongs.

[538280]

McPhee


McPhee was an above average hitter, with some even very good hitting seasons, and is arguably the best fielding 2Bman of all time (him or Mazeroski). He had good longevity for a 19th century player who played under short schedules. Why isn't he a HOFer?

[AlecBoy006]

I'd have to agree.

He didn't outhit his league, however.

[Dodgerfan1]

McPhee was an above average hitter, with some even very good hitting seasons, and is arguably the best fielding 2Bman of all time (him or Mazeroski). He had good longevity for a 19th century player who played under short schedules. Why isn't he a HOFer?

Because he doesn't rank among the all-time greats, in my book. That's what the HOF is for. I don't make allowances for enshrining above average/very good players merely because there may be less deserving players already in the Hall. All-time great means all-time great, to me. Maz doesn't belong but I believe he does more so that McPhee, but just barely. They're basically about equal. Yes, McPhee was an amazing fielder. No, he doesn't belong, IMO.

[538280]

Because he doesn't rank among the all-time greats, in my book. That's what the HOF is for. I don't make allowances for enshrining above average/very good players merely because there may be less deserving players already in the Hall. All-time great means all-time great, to me. Maz doesn't belong but I believe he does more so that McPhee, but just barely. They're basically about equal. Yes, McPhee was an amazing fielder. No, he doesn't belong, IMO.

Why isn't McPhee an all time great? I'd think at least McPhee is one of the top 150 players of all time. Just stating your opinion isn't going to convince me. Personalliy I don't see how McPhee can be rated behind Mazeroski. They both are regarded as right with each other for the all time best at their position, but while Maz was a bad hitter, well below average, McPhee was slightly above average-he has a 106 career OPS+. If you have a 106 career OPS+ (solid hitter), you have a good length career, and are arguably the best defensive player ever at a positoin like second base you'd seem like a HOFer to me This is not like Maz or Maranville or Schalk, where we have a great defensive player with well below average offense.

[AlecBoy006]

I agree Mcphee is an all time great for his time, but no way is he a HOF'er if he played 50 years ago.

[Ubiquitous]

If he played 50 years ago his numbers in all probability would look different.

[CTaka]

I agree Mcphee is an all time great for his time, but no way is he a HOF'er if he played 50 years ago.

You are right - McPhee was not even alive 50 years ago, but I don't see what that has to do with whether or no he is a HOF'er. Can you explain that?

I have no problem with McPhee in the HOF. He is arguably the greatest defensive player ever at a key defensive position (2B - I view it as pretty much a coin toss with Maz) who unlike Maz or Ozzie, was an above average hitter as well. Both Maz and Ozzie had a career OPS+ of less than 90, while Bid finished at 106. Is 106 strong enough if he were just an average or above average fielder? I don't think so. But if you are the best fielder at your position in history, that's more than enough in my book for a plaque.

Offensively, his career WARP-1 easily outdistances Maz, Ozzie, Schoendienst, Lazzeri, Billy Herman, Evers, Doerr, and Fox. Heck, McPhee had 7 seasons with a WARP-1 over 10, same as Charlie Gehringer, and McPhee's career WARP-1 is 20 points higher than Gehringer in close to the same number of seasons. No, I am NOT arguing that Gehringer doesn't deserve to be enshrined, but how then can you argue against McPhee???

Despite finishing with a lifetime BA slightly below league average, he made up for this with his ability to get on base. He finished in the top ten in walks 6 times in his career. And while stolen bases were awarded under a different criteria in his day, he finished in the top ten in stolen bases 4 times, enough for me to consider him to be an above average runner in his day.

I see McPhee as a very legitimate HOFer. It was an injustice that he had to wait as long as he did to get his due recognition, but at least the much maligned Veteran's Committee got that one right.

And I don't see how the "50 years ago" remark has anything to do with what McPhee accomplished on the field. I'd like an explanation as to what that means.

[Ubiquitous]

Just something that some of you guys might not be aware of. Bid McPhee didn't use a glove until I believe 1896!

[CTaka]

Just something that some of you guys might not be aware of. Bid McPhee didn't use a glove until I believe 1896!

True, he used to soak his hands in salt water to toughen them up to handle the abuse of playing bare-handed. And that year he finally decided to use a glove (because he developed a sore on his finger in spring training that, unlike in prior years didn't harden over with a callous) he set a fielding percentage mark of .978, a record that would stand for the next 29 seasons.

For some further info on Bid, here's a link:

http://reds.enquirer.com/2000/07/16/red_mcphee_ran_fielded.html

[BlueBlood]

He has a Hall Of Fame sort of name...believe me, that sort of thing helps. It explains why Bonnie Raitt made the Rock Hall Of Fame. Tony Lazzeri. It's fun to say.

[Dodgerfan1]

Why isn't McPhee an all time great? I'd think at least McPhee is one of the top 150 players of all time. Just stating your opinion isn't going to convince me....

I wasn't trying to convince you of anything. You asked me why he didn't belong in the HOF and I gave you my reasons. I have seen many of your postings and I'm fairly certain you cannot be convinced of anything that you don't already believe anyway, so why would I try? That's not meant to be insulting or flippant, just stating things as I see them, so please don't take that the wrong way. For what it's worth, after reading your post, it's still my opinion that McPhee doesn't belong. That's the way it goes, I guess.

[AlecBoy006]

You are right - McPhee was not even alive 50 years ago, but I don't see what that has to do with whether or no he is a HOF'er. Can you explain that?
I have no problem with McPhee in the HOF. He is arguably the greatest defensive player ever at a key defensive position (2B - I view it as pretty much a coin toss with Maz) who unlike Maz or Ozzie, was an above average hitter as well. Both Maz and Ozzie had a career OPS+ of less than 90, while Bid finished at 106. Is 106 strong enough if he were just an average or above average fielder? I don't think so. But if you are the best fielder at your position in history, that's more than enough in my book for a plaque.

Offensively, his career WARP-1 easily outdistances Maz, Ozzie, Schoendienst, Lazzeri, Billy Herman, Evers, Doerr, and Fox. Heck, McPhee had 7 seasons with a WARP-1 over 10, same as Charlie Gehringer, and McPhee's career WARP-1 is 20 points higher than Gehringer in close to the same number of seasons. No, I am NOT arguing that Gehringer doesn't deserve to be enshrined, but how then can you argue against McPhee???

Despite finishing with a lifetime BA slightly below league average, he made up for this with his ability to get on base. He finished in the top ten in walks 6 times in his career. And while stolen bases were awarded under a different criteria in his day, he finished in the top ten in stolen bases 4 times, enough for me to consider him to be an above average runner in his day.

I see McPhee as a very legitimate HOFer. It was an injustice that he had to wait as long as he did to get his due recognition, but at least the much maligned Veteran's Committee got that one right.

And I don't see how the "50 years ago" remark has anything to do with what McPhee accomplished on the field. I'd like an explanation as to what that means.



Sure can.

Mcphee played in a different era. Let's take a look at the 50's. I'll use Bobby Richardson as an example. The league FP was .978 during his era. If Mcphee played during Richardson's era, and maintained his career FP of .944, he'd be a terrible defender and a bad choice for the hall. But Mcphee was insanely above the league average in FP during his day. So, it's all different.

[CTaka]

Sure can.

Mcphee played in a different era. Let's take a look at the 50's. I'll use Bobby Richardson as an example. The league FP was .978 during his era. If Mcphee played during Richardson's era, and maintained his career FP of .944, he'd be a terrible defender and a bad choice for the hall. But Mcphee was insanely above the league average in FP during his day. So, it's all different.

So are you saying that since McPhee played 120 years ago, you agree that he is a solid HOFer? And if McPhee played 50 years ago, his fielding percentage would likely have been much higher than it was in his day since the league average was much higher? Obviously there is no reason to believe that McPhee would have had a .944 fielding percentage if he played in the 1950's. I mean that is just stating the obvious.

[lovethegame]

Why is there never any respect for Lazzeri?:noidea
When second sackers are bandied about he rarely if ever comes up.
His 162 game season averages are as follows
292-17-111 with 92 runs ,171 hits ,31 doubles ,11 triples81 bb to match his 80k's
obp of 380 slg of 467 an ops of 121 and he fielded at a 965 clip while his peers were at 966.
7 plus 100 rbi seasons of which 6 were top ten
4 top 10 hr seasons and 5 top 10 bb
He sounds pretty good to me and was good enough to be a big part of a true dynasty

[jalbright]

Perhaps some of the prior 120 or so posts in this thread I've just merged your thread with will give you some answers.

[DoubleX]

Why is there never any respect for Lazzeri?:noidea
When second sackers are bandied about he rarely if ever comes up.
His 162 game season averages are as follows
292-17-111 with 92 runs ,171 hits ,31 doubles ,11 triples81 bb to match his 80k's
obp of 380 slg of 467 an ops of 121 and he fielded at a 965 clip while his peers were at 966.
7 plus 100 rbi seasons of which 6 were top ten
4 top 10 hr seasons and 5 top 10 bb
He sounds pretty good to me and was good enough to be a big part of a true dynasty

Lazzeri is borderline for me, but I'd probably put him in if given the choice. The arguments against Lazzeri are that his raw numbers are inflated due to his era, was helped by being in great lineups (and thus made it easier to put up good numbers), he was poor defensively, and had a relatively short career. Nonetheless, Lazzeri was still a legitimately very good hitter for a 2Bman, irrespective of era, and he was a prominent player on some of the most famed teams, so I think it's enough to nudge him just barely over the line. If I were to rank him though based purely on performance, I'd probably have him around 20th all time at 2B (not including Negro Leaguers and 19th Century players), give or take a spot or two, and that is around questionable Hall of Fame territory.

[Paul Wendt]

Yes, indeed, unless you will represent some fielding positions (perhaps 2B, SS and C) more heavily than others. Say,

40 from the 19th century, debut before 1896
40 from behind the color line
160 = 8 @ 20 for every fielding position except pitcher, debut 1896-1985
60 pitchers from the same period
---
300
20 recent and older active players (Alomar, Biggio at 2B)
---
320

[Scoops]

There's also a bunch of random stat flukes about Tony Lazzeri that make him more interesting/appealing.

- He was the first player to hit two grand slams in a game
- Only player to hit a natural cycle ending in a grand slam
- Holds the AL record for RBI in a game

I realize these are all team dependent things (guys on base and whatnot), but little things like that help a case.

Also: no one seems to have pointed out that Tony Lazzeri was another one of those good right handed hitters hitting into the giant LF/CF of Yankee Stadium. I don't know if it hurt him as much as DiMaggio, but I doubt it would help him much.



Off topic: While googling around about Lazzeri, I found a totally awesome quote regarding the Mariners not winning anything - ie. wasting talent - with A-Rod, Junior and Randy Johnson.

<FJM-ish>

[W]hat about the New York Yankees, 1929-1931? Five Hall of Famers in the lineup -- Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Bill Dickey, Tony Lazzeri, Earle Combs -- plus a pitching staff that always featured at least two Hall of Famers. And how many pennants did they win? Zero. Yes, they won the World Series in 1928, and again in 1932. But for three straight seasons, the Yankees didn't win anything.

First of all, Combs shouldn't be a Hall of Famer, nor should any pitcher from that era not named Red Ruffing. Lazzeri is debatable, much like how Edgar Martinez would be for the Mariners. That said: Ruth - four WS wins (as a Yankee, seven total). Gehrig - six. Dickey - eight. Lazzeri - five. Combs - three. Every Mariner ever (while playing for the Mariners) - zero pennants. Winning two World Series in five years = waste of talent. They won TWO World Series together, which is two more than those Mariners won together. In fact, it's also two more pennants than those Mariners won together. Also: more than any Mariners have won together. It's also worth noting that the Yankees manager died in 1929.

</FJM-ish>)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Part of Tony's longevity issues stem fron the organizational structure of baseball at the time and the other part from his malady. Tony was playing in the PCL in 1922. He wouldn't play for a major league team until 1926. That year he was the Yankees fulltime second basemen from the get go and he performed like a major leaguer. In all probability if was playing nowadays he probably would have gotten called up in 1924 or so and had about 300 more games to his totals. 300 games would move Tony into the top 10 in terms of total games for a second basemen at that time. Without it he was 18th. Depending on how many games he had played he could have risen all the way up to 6th with this. If he didn't have epilepsy he would have definitely been in the majors sooner. The Chicago Cubs actually had first crack at him and they passed because of it. Then so did the Reds. The Yankees after much hemming and hawing finally ponied up the dough it required to pry him from the Seals.


Well . . . maybe . . .

Lazzeri was playing regularly in the major leagues at age 22. He was NOT trapped in the minors for an inordinate amount of time. He MAY have been ready for the bigs a year earlier, but it's NOT unusual for a player, even a HOFer, to not be in the bigs until age 22.

The epilepsy was not his fault, but it did impact his career. Lazzeri last played as a regular at age 33; his career totals have a very limited, and swift, decline phase.

Lazzeri had two superstar seasons; 1928 and 1929. He posted Offensive Winning Percentages of .719 and .745, which are excellent for the time. He may have been the best second baseman in the AL during those years; his OWP during those two years was better than Charlie Gehringer's, so the question becomes one of whether Gehringer's defense put him over the top during those two years. From 1930 on, however, there was no question but that Gehringer was the superior player, and he was a better player than Laz before 1928 as well.

If Lazzeri fielded like Bill Mazeroski, I'd advocate his selection. His defense was no better than average, and his bat didn't have the longevity to keep him in the bigs. Why Lazzeri and not Buddy Myer?