Ray Schalk's OPS+

[The Dude]

Alright. I'm not going to argue for Schalk right now. I just did a little project, and I wanted to post the results.

From 1913-1923, compared to other Catchers in his league, Ray Schalks OPS+ was:
107

Season by Season:

1913:99
1914:111
1915:118
1916:99
1917:102
1918:95
1919:101
1920:103
1921:86
1922:100
1923:81

So while he may not be an all-time great catcher Offensively, for his time period he was a little better than average.

Make of this what you will.

[538280]

Schalk played in one of the weakest hitting times for catchers of all time yet still was barely above the average of that group. His fielding was great, he was awesome at working with the pitchers, but like Maz, he just was not a great player, great at one facet of the game, but overall not a great player, and that is not a HOFer.

[Gregory Pratt]

Isn't he in the Hall to spite the guys who were banned from baseball on the Black Sox?

[The Dude]

Schalk played in one of the weakest hitting times for catchers of all time yet still was barely above the average of that group. His fielding was great, he was awesome at working with the pitchers, but like Maz, he just was not a great player, great at one facet of the game, but overall not a great player, and that is not a HOFer.

I would blatently disagree. Being arguably the greatest defensive catcher ever already makes him a HoFer in my opinion, but to add to the fact that he was better than average offensively at a position that like you said, was not a strong offense position, he deserves the HoF in a number of ways. One of those would be what I've already said. The other, would be being arguably the best all-around catcher of his generation.

[538280]

I would blatently disagree. Being arguably the greatest defensive catcher ever already makes him a HoFer in my opinion, but to add to the fact that he was better than average offensively at a position that like you said, was not a strong offense position, he deserves the HoF in a number of ways. One of those would be what I've already said. The other, would be being arguably the best all-around catcher of his generation.

I guess what I don't understand is why being an average hitter at a bad hitting position is anything that's supposed to make you HOF worthy. The guy wasn't a good hitter, the only reason why he was average at his position is because the other guys who played his position also were not very good hitters. Schalk wasn't necessarily providing awful offense from catcher, but it wans't particuarly good offense either, it's not like he was opening up a spot in the lineup for another good hitter-like an elite hitter at catcher can do-because he was a well below average hitter himself.

BTW, please check your PM box.

[The Dude]

It's not solely about being an average hitter at a bad hitting position, it's the fact that using this, Schalk becomes one of the technically better hitting catchers (Although at the time, it's pretty much Schang and no one else) for his time, therefor included with his All-Time defense, he could arguably be called the best player at his position for a period of time. I, and I'm guessing I'm not the only person around here, believe that if you're the best player at your position for number of years, you should be a hall of famer.

[538280]

It's not solely about being an average hitter at a bad hitting position, it's the fact that using this, Schalk becomes one of the technically better hitting catchers (Although at the time, it's pretty much Schang and no one else) for his time, therefor included with his All-Time defense, he could arguably be called the best player at his position for a period of time.

Maybe could be argued, but it's not an argument that I would agree with. Wally Schang over that period was probably an average defensive catcher, but was a well above average hitter among all players, not just catchers. While Schalk was better defensively, he wasn't a truly great all around player. I wouldn't say Schang quite was either, but he was plenty good enough a hitter to offset Schalk's defense. I don't think that I'd put Schang in the HOF either, but I do think he was the best catcher of his generation.

I, and I'm guessing I'm not the only person around here, believe that if you're the best player at your position for number of years, you should be a hall of famer.

Maybe you're not, but I'm not one of them. There doesn't "have to be" a set amount of great players at each position in every era, positions are specific enough that there can easily be draughts in talent for periods of time and other clusters of talent. That you happened to be a pretty good historical catcher who came along at a time when there were very few doesn't somehow make you a better player. Just to give a frame of reference, if Schalk (or even Schang) were compared to the catchers of the 70s, they'd be behind Bench, Carter, Fisk, Simmons, and probably Gene Tenace and Thurman Munson as well. The only reason they appear well by that logic is because no other true all time great catcher played at that time, and I don't understand how that somehow makes Schalk better. This is not all players in the leauge, where there should be a fair balance of stars across time. One position is far more specific and as talent pools get more specific, there are going to be more talent draughts.

[The Dude]

We will never see eye to eye. I'm Big hall. You are Small hall. Maybe it stems from my ideals of putting more emphasis on Defensive and Base Running skills. Those things alone give players a lot more ways to get into my hall. Schalk happens to qualify for a number of them.

I would agree with you on Fisk, Carter, Bench, and Simmons. Tenance probably, but Munson no. Schalks all-time defense is too valuable to me to put him lower than Munson, and I normally treat Munson as the cut-off area for my catchers.

I am of the opinion that there should be more players from last 50 years in the hall, than the previous, due to league quality. However, that doesn't mean I wont cherish the best of the earlier generations.

[leecemark]

--Schalk is a pretty marginal HoFer IMO. Better than Ferrell and possibly Lombardi, if you have a huge defensive premium for catchers (Lombardi was a great hitting, but horrible fielding catcher). There are more catchers outside the Hall who were better than guys in who he is comparable to though. He wasn't the best catcher of his generation either. That would be Negro Leaguer Luis Santop.

[538280]

We will never see eye to eye. I'm Big hall. You are Small hall. Maybe it stems from my ideals of putting more emphasis on Defensive and Base Running skills. Those things alone give players a lot more ways to get into my hall. Schalk happens to qualify for a number of them.

I don't consider myself small hall. I just consider myself "realistic hall". The actual HOF has about 220 players in it. That's about how many players I'd have in my HOF. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of mistakes in the HOF, there are, but I'd replace those mistakes with players who I find to be more well qualified. I put what I feel are appropriate weights on defense and baserunning that accurately represent their value within the game.

I would agree with you on Fisk, Carter, Bench, and Simmons. Tenance probably, but Munson no. Schalks all-time defense is too valuable to me to put him lower than Munson, and I normally treat Munson as the cut-off area for my catchers.

Munson had all time great defense too, probably just a step below Schalk. Munson was just a MUCH better hitter than Schalk though, solidly above average, while Schalk was solidly below average. I don't think the difference between a top 3 or so and a top...10-15 defensive catcher is larger than that between a solidly above and below average hitter. Over their careers the difference in hitting between Munson and Schalk is at least 200 runs vs. average. Schalk would have to be WAY ahead of just about every catcher in history defensively to make that up. Munson himself was probably at least 50-100 runs above average. BP has Schalk 98 runs above average. I'd say he deserves more than that but it would be pushing it to say he deserves much more than 150. (BTW, for comparison, BP has Munson 79 runs above average).

I am of the opinion that there should be more players from last 50 years in the hall, than the previous, due to league quality. However, that doesn't mean I wont cherish the best of the earlier generations.

I think modern players deserve somewhat of a boost to their numbers due to league quality (to see better how good they really were), but the HOF exists to celebrate baseball history, and because of this I feel that they should try to give every era roughly equal representation.

[The Dude]

I don't consider myself small hall. I just consider myself "realistic hall". The actual HOF has about 220 players in it. That's about how many players I'd have in my HOF. That doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of mistakes in the HOF, there are, but I'd replace those mistakes with players who I find to be more well qualified. I put what I feel are appropriate weights on defense and baserunning that accurately represent their value within the game.

I would not say I put more importannce than is needed on defense and baserunning, but what it should be rated at. Offense is much easier to analyze and easier to understand, thus I believe leading to Defense and Baserunning's importance being underated. But that's why I love our discussions, we never agree on anything.


I think modern players deserve somewhat of a boost to their numbers due to league quality (to see better how good they really were), but the HOF exists to celebrate baseball history, and because of this I feel that they should try to give every era roughly equal representation.

Oh, I agree the HoF exists to celebrate history, but I feel that in my own personal hall, it exists to enshrine players for a number of reasons which I already stated, and I think for most of those players I would probably argue for thier actually enshrinement.

[ElHalo]

I guess what I don't understand is why being an average hitter at a bad hitting position is anything that's supposed to make you HOF worthy.

Check Maranville or Smith. If you're one of the best ever at a key defensive position, that should be enough, unless your hitting is so bad you can't stay on the field (a la Rey Ordonez).

[DTF955]

Isn't he in the Hall to spite the guys who were banned from baseball on the Black Sox?

Eddie Collins does that, though.

What about his handling of pitchers? What are the staff ERAs like just before he came and just after he left, versus when he was there? What about staff ERAs when he caught and when he didn't?

I suppose that's one of those intangibles that's hard to really calculate, even with that. However, i do believe that is part of the greatness of a catcher. Any stories about how he did with them? Rookies he really helped bring along? On-field leadership?

not saying that was part of it, but that would help me to see a case for him. It's part of his job, after all.

[538280]

I would not say I put more importannce than is needed on defense and baserunning, but what it should be rated at. Offense is much easier to analyze and easier to understand, thus I believe leading to Defense and Baserunning's importance being underated. But that's why I love our discussions, we never agree on anything.

Baserunning is really part of offense, stealing bases and getting caught stealing is easy to analyze. I do agree that taking extra bases though is really a factor that can help teams win games (or lose them if players are making bad decisions), but I can't imagine it's THAT large. What taking extra bases essentially does is if you do it well it should improve the number of times you score runs when you're on base. Some players score more runs than they "should" based on their offensive stats and those of their teammates, but the differences are never that large, generally runs scored can be predicted accurately from regular offensive stats. That makes me think that while non-quantifiable areas of baserunning can be a factor, they're not THAT much of a factor.

Fielding is clearly not even close to as large a part of the game as hitting. A player's offensive stats make up 50% of why teams win games (scoring runs). Preventing runs is the other 50%, and that is split between pitching and fielding, with pitching receiving a larger share (probably about 2/3 of the share). Therefore, in terms of why teams win games, I'd say a player's offensive stats make up 50% of that, while defense makes up about 16.5%. Following from that, that means that for the typical position player, 75% of their value will be in offense, 25% in defense. I just don't think it makes any sense, in a logical model of the game, to claim that being the best defensive player at any position can make a player truly great while they are a truly below average offensive player.

Oh, I agree the HoF exists to celebrate history, but I feel that in my own personal hall, it exists to enshrine players for a number of reasons which I already stated, and I think for most of those players I would probably argue for thier actually enshrinement.

We probably differ there as well-I have no "personal HOF" with its own set of personal rules. I try to model my own HOF on the actual institution and its goals and reasons for existence.

[538280]

Check Maranville or Smith. If you're one of the best ever at a key defensive position, that should be enough, unless your hitting is so bad you can't stay on the field (a la Rey Ordonez).

Maranville is similar to Schalk IMO and I don't support him for much of the same reasons; he was good at one part of the game but wasn't a great player. He was a truly bad offensive player, Smith was not. Ozzie Smith actually had a solid OBP, a very good one in his best years, and was a great baserunner/basestealer. Taking into consideration and giving his steals a more appropriate weight, he's essentially a dead average offensive player over his career. That's the conclusion I've come with in looking at linear weight base values and BP also has him 39 runs above average over his career. I think he was an underrated offensive player (though I also think that his defense, because defense has no real obvious statistical parameters, as Bill James said, can cause him to be overrated with casual fans), and his offense is certainly NOT at the same level as Schalk, Maranville, or Bill Mazeroski.

[ElHalo]

Maranville is similar to Schalk IMO and I don't support him for much of the same reasons; he was good at one part of the game but wasn't a great player. He was a truly bad offensive player, Smith was not. Ozzie Smith actually had a solid OBP, a very good one in his best years, and was a great baserunner/basestealer. Taking into consideration and giving his steals a more appropriate weight, he's essentially a dead average offensive player over his career. That's the conclusion I've come with in looking at linear weight base values and BP also has him 39 runs above average over his career. I think he was an underrated offensive player (though I also think that his defense, because defense has no real obvious statistical parameters, as Bill James said, can cause him to be overrated with casual fans), and his offense is certainly NOT at the same level as Schalk, Maranville, or Bill Mazeroski.

Smith was a better basestealer than Maranville, but Maranville was no slouch in that department. I really don't see where the five OPS+ points between them make all that much of a difference.

[538280]

Smith was a better basestealer than Maranville, but Maranville was no slouch in that department. I really don't see where the five OPS+ points between them make all that much of a difference.

Smith also actually had a pretty good OBP, his relative OBP was 103 and Maranville's was 94. OPS+ is a good starting measure of offensive production, but certain factors like the importance of OBP are undercompensated for in it. More sophisticated offensive measures, that place an accurate run value on every event, all have Smith significantly better offensively than Maranville, and when you get beyond the OPS+, it's easy to see why like I said:

BRAA
Smith: 28
Maranvile: -149

Total Baseball's Batting Runs plus Basestealing Runs
Smith: -72
Maraville: -258

I also came up with my own system which values everything in relationship to a single which is 1. A walk is .72, a SB .4, a double 1.5, a triple 2.2, and a HR 3 (that is based on linear weight values), and all that compared to leauge norms. Smith is basically a dead league average offensive player by that. I haven't done Maranville but based on the results of other systems based on basically the same weights I'm pretty sure he'd come out as at least 100 or so runs below average over his career.

Basically I don't feel Ozzie Smith deserves to be in a category with Maranville, Schalk, or Mazeroski. I don't think it's relevant to say "Maranville or Maz or Schalk belong in because they're like Ozzie and he's in." Ozzie was a much better offensive player than either of those three.

[brett]

I would blatently disagree. Being arguably the greatest defensive catcher ever already makes him a HoFer in my opinion, but to add to the fact that he was better than average offensively at a position that like you said, was not a strong offense position, he deserves the HoF in a number of ways. One of those would be what I've already said. The other, would be being arguably the best all-around catcher of his generation.

I would agree that a catcher who was arguably the best in history, and hit the league average would be right on the line-if he caught 2000 games.

Schalk

Games caught: 1727
OPS+: 83

Boone

GC: 2225
OPS+ 82

Sundberg

GC: 1927
OPS+: 89

It's hard to separate him from those two, although he was a good baserunner.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would agree that a catcher who was arguably the best in history, and hit the league average would be right on the line-if he caught 2000 games.

Schalk

Games caught: 1727
OPS+: 83

Boone

GC: 2225
OPS+ 82

Sundberg

GC: 1927
OPS+: 89

It's hard to separate him from those two, although he was a good baserunner.

Boone has a stronger case than is generally recognized for the HOF. At the time he approached Lopez' record for games caught, there was a developing consensus that Boone would go into the HOF. What destroyed that was Fisk breaking Boone's record and burying the pieces.

I would not vote for Schalk if he were not in the HOF, but I view him as a prior day Boone. I've posted this in other threads, but I view Schalk as superior to Schang, because of (A) his defensive value, and (B) the fact that he was a truly full-time catcher (arguably, the first of the 20th century). Schalk was Bob Boone. Schang was Ron Hassey.

[Westlake]

Schalk played in one of the weakest hitting times for catchers of all time yet still was barely above the average of that group. His fielding was great, he was awesome at working with the pitchers, but like Maz, he just was not a great player, great at one facet of the game, but overall not a great player, and that is not a HOFer.

Well, obviously, since both are in, it IS a HOFer.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Well, obviously, since both are in, it IS a HOFer.

This is a true statement, and one that deserves discussion.

The HOF is a self-defining instutution. When we say a player is a HOFer here, we are saying that this player falls into the level of career or peak value that typifies the average HOFer. Or something like that.

In truth, a HOFer is nothing more than a guy who's been elected to the HOF. Simple as that; you're either in or out. If enough guys with OPSs like Maz and Schalk are in the HOF, than such a level of OPS IS HOF caliber under at least SOME conditions.

[KCGHOST]

From 1910-1930 amongst the 12 catchers to accrue 300 AB's Schalk ranks 9th in RCAA. None of the players above him are in the HoF.

[538280]

Well, obviously, since both are in, it IS a HOFer.

Sure, if you think the selections were accurate. I don't. By this logic every player better than George Kelly should be in the HOF.

[Westlake]

Sure, if you think the selections were accurate. I don't. By this logic every player better than George Kelly should be in the HOF.

It's not logic, it is fact. You are saying they are not HOFers... you're wrong. They have the plaque to prove it.

[538280]

It's not logic, it is fact. You are saying they are not HOFers... you're wrong. They have the plaque to prove it.

I mean they're not HOFers to me, yes they actually are, but I don't think they should be.

[DoubleX]

It's not logic, it is fact. You are saying they are not HOFers... you're wrong. They have the plaque to prove it.

Sorry to interject in this riveting debate, but I really don't see what the point of this debate is. I'm sure you know that when 538280 said "they are not Hall of Famers" he did not mean it in the literal sense, but in that in his opinion, they do not measure up to being of Hall of Fame quality.

[Westlake]

Sorry to interject in this riveting debate, but I really don't see what the point of this debate is. I'm sure you know that when 538280 said "they are not Hall of Famers" he did not mean it in the literal sense, but in that in his opinion, they do not measure up to being of Hall of Fame quality.

Nice sarcasm, very necessary.

I'm just tired of hearing that stupid phrase, when they are HOFers. Like Fuzzy Bear said, it is a self-defining institution. It doesn't make any sense to say that someone is not a HOFer if they are in fact in the Hall of Fame. You can disagree with their selection til you are blue in the face, but saying 'Schalk and Mazeroski are hot HOFers' is just factually wrong.

[DoubleX]

Nice sarcasm, very necessary.

I thought it was about as necessary as you harping on a point that you knew (or should have known) was not meant in the way you were responding to. It seemed pretty clear, knowing of 538280's knowledge, that when he said that players like Schalk and Mazeroski are not Hall of Famers, he did not mean it in the literal sense, but in his personal, subjective estimation. I don't see how it is necessary to argue against the obvious by pointing out the obvious.

[Westlake]

I thought it was about as necessary as you harping on a point that you knew (or should have known) was not meant in the way you were responding to. It seemed pretty clear, knowing of 538280's knowledge, that when he said that players like Schalk and Mazeroski are not Hall of Famers, he did not mean it in the literal sense, but in his estimation. I don't see how it is necessary to argue against the obvious by pointing out the obvious.

It doesn't matter what the estimation is, when you say Schalk and Maz are not Hall of Famers, you are wrong. That's like me saying "Bill Mueller didn't win a batting title" because I don't think he should have won it... but did he win it? Yes. Therefore my statement is WRONG, and very incorrectly worded if it was intended to mean something else.

[DoubleX]

It doesn't matter what the estimation is, when you say Schalk and Maz are not Hall of Famers, you are wrong. That's like me saying "Bill Mueller didn't win a batting title" because I don't think he should have won it... but did he win it? Yes. Therefore my statement is WRONG, and very incorrectly worded if it was intended to mean something else.

I seem to recall you on the other side of this same kind of argument, when I asked a question about which team spent the most money in a season in which they won the World Series.

Nevertheless, in this discussion, I find it difficult to believe that you thought 538280 meant what he said literally. Do you really believe that 538280 does not know that Ray Scahlk and Bill Mazeroski are actually in the Hall of Fame and are thus Hall of Famers in that sense? What's the point of attacking a statement that you most likely knew he didn't intend in the literal sense? You're just pointing out the obvious and creating unnecessary acrimony.

A more fruitful, discussion, IMO, would be for you to counter 538280 and explain why you feel those players are indeed worthy of their Hall of Fame distinction. I believe we've had such a brief discussion before and that you made some valid points (I believe you made the point that the Hall of Fame should honor the best defensive players).

Also, to be fair, I'll address 538280 as well - Chris, I think we've spoken before about trying to refrain from talking in absolutes. Even if you have strong support for your opinion, it is still nonetheless an opinion. Presenting your perspective as a fact that should be obvious to everyone, also lends itself to this kind of acrimony, especially when there are others who have strong beliefs in a contrary opinion (which appears to be the case here).

[Westlake]

I seem to recall you on the other side of this same kind of argument, when I asked a question about which team spent the most money in a season in which they won the World Series.

I dont think I ever said the Yankees or any other team spent more, period.

Nevertheless, in this discussion, I find it difficult to believe that you thought 538280 meant what he said literally. Do you really believe that 538280 does not know that Ray Scahlk and Bill Mazeroski are not actually in the Hall of Fame and are thus Hall of Famers in that sense? What's the point of attacking a statement that you most likely knew he didn't intend in the literal sense? You're just pointing out the obvious and creating unnecessary acrimony.

I didn't think he meant that literally. And I wasn't 'attacking' anything. I just don't think it's right to say someone who IS in the HOF is not a HOFer. It doesn't make any sense to me.

A more fruitful, discussion, IMO, would be for you to counter 538280 and explain why you feel those players are indeed worthy of their Hall of Fame distinction. I believe we've had such a brief discussion before and that you made some valid points (I believe you made the point that the Hall of Fame should honor the best defensive players).

Also, to be fair, I'll address 538280 as well - Chris, I think we've spoken before about trying to refrain from talking in absolutes. Even if you have strong support for your opinion, it is still nonetheless an opinion. Presenting your perspective as a fact that should be obvious to everyone, also lends itself to this kind of acrimony, especially when there are others who have strong beliefs in a contrary opinion (which appears to be the case here).

Done here..

[DoubleX]

I didn't think he meant that literally. And I wasn't 'attacking' anything. I just don't think it's right to say someone who IS in the HOF is not a HOFer. It doesn't make any sense to me.


I see what you're saying here and that's why I also asked 538280 to soften his language when presenting his opinion. Adding something simple like "IMO" after the statement, can go a long way to that effect and should remove any indication that a person is talking in absolutisms.

Anyway, back to Ray Schalk...

[KCGHOST]

Always good to see a thread hijacked over a quibble. There are folks on this board who couldn't stay on topic with a gun to their head.

[yanks0714]

I see what you're saying here and that's why I also asked 538280 to soften his language when presenting his opinion. Adding something simple like "IMO" after the statement, can go a long way to that effect and should remove any indication that a person is talking in absolutisms.

Anyway, back to Ray Schalk...

Wow, I've made that statement too, 'So and so is not a HOF'er', meaning in my book. So have a number of other posters on assorted other threads. And we all know what that poster is stating. To get wound up because of that comment??? Wonder if it's simply that 538280 made the comment? How come we don't jump on someone when they call so-and-so a 'jerk'.

But, anyway, regarding Ray Schalk (and Maz for that matter) are not HOF'ers. ;) :D :p And the reason for it? I don't agree that the best fielder at a given position should be lected to the HOF.

Let's say Mario Mendoza pre-Ozzied Ozzie Smith. Let's say he had a long career simply because he was such a great fielder, lucked into playing with teams that had no alternative, or felt for whatever reason they could carry his .200 BA, pathetic OBP, and zero power simply because he was the greatest defensive SS in baseball history.

Would you say Mendoza was HOF worthy?

Schalk and Maz were automatic outs like Mendoza, but let's be honest, they are in the HOF because of their defense (maybe Shalk's in because he was a Clean Sox).

[Fuzzy Bear]

I did not mean for my earlier post to spark the type of debate it has.

Schalk and Maz are HOFers; that is a fact. They are below average HOFers; this is also true. Most players who do what they do are NOT in the HOF; if most were, the HOF would have 600 members.

Whether Schalk and Maz are players whose careers justify the honor is subjective. Part of the answer is in just how much fielding defense is part of a player's overall value, especially at critical defensive position (catcher, middle infield). These guys may have been the greatest defensive players ever. Schalk has some competition of late, but Maz' records still stand atop the pile in terms of defensive value.

I do not believe that Maz is in the HOF for his home run, nor do I believe that Schalk is in because he was one of the "Clean Sox". Schalk was regarded by some as a great player while active; Babe Ruth considered Schalk the greatest catcher he ever saw. Maz always had his admirers, and their persistance paid off, I guess. These guys are in the HOF because they are atop the defensive world of baseball, and enough people said that was enough even though they were only average, offensively.

[DoubleX]

I do not believe that Maz is in the HOF for his home run, nor do I believe that Schalk is in because he was one of the "Clean Sox". Schalk was regarded by some as a great player while active; Babe Ruth considered Schalk the greatest catcher he ever saw. Maz always had his admirers, and their persistance paid off, I guess. These guys are in the HOF because they are atop the defensive world of baseball, and enough people said that was enough even though they were only average, offensively.

I've long felt that one of the reasons Schalk is in is because he was one of the clean Sox. I've felt like he received some kind of sympathy and bonus points for being a good, hard-nosed guy and leader on that disgraced team, and I think the Hall, perhaps subconciously, rewarded him for that given the situation.