Schang vs. Schalk-one's in and the other belongs

[penneyAA]

Being on the same page in reference books, the comparison between contemporary American league catchers Wally Schang and Ray Schalk seems natural.Schalk made his debut late in 1912 and played his entire 18 year career with the White sox save two at bats in 1929 with the Giants.Schang surfaced in 1913 with the Athletics and also played alongside Babe Ruth with the Red Sox and Yanks before retiring in 1931 with Detroit.
Their career AB total are seperated by 1 (5307-5306 for Schang).However, the similarities end there.Schang had 160 more hits (including 65 more doubles, 41 more triples and 48 more homers) than Schalk.He also scored and drove in 190 and 116 more, respectivly.Schang hit .284 for his career with a remarkable .393 OBP and a .401 SLG..Schalk finished up at .253/.340/.316.Schang hit over .300 6 times and had an OBP over .400 8 times.Schalk never did either, even once.
Schang played in 6 world series winning as a rookie with the A's (hit .357), in 1918 with the Red Sox (.444) and in 1923 with the Yankees (.318).Schalk was on the black sox scandal team that lost in 1919 and won a world series title previously in 1917.
Schalk was considered one of the the finest defensive catchers of his era and that is an important fact that can't be discounted.However, his induction into the HOF in 1955 is puzzling.Was he that much better than Wally Schang?The numbers suggest he clearly wasn't.If Schalk deserves to be in, and I'm not convinced he does,then Schang should be in there as well.

[Chickazoola]

The argument for Schalk is that he was considered the best defensive catcher of all time. I don't necessarily agree, as it appears based on a lot of anecdotal evidence, the same kind which suggests Sisler and Chase are the best defensive first basemen of all time even though their stats don't show it. Catcher stats are hard to really decipher meaningfully, but Schalk's appear quite good.

Also Schalk was remarkably durable for an old time catcher, and he played on the Black Sox team both of which add to his case or at least people's arguments for him.

Schang played on a bunch of pennant winners, was a better hitter than Schalk, but probably not as good defensively, and he wasn't as durable as Schalk. He also didn't have much power and drew alot of walks, a skill that's value was underrated during his career. That being said he played on 4 different teams that won World Series and 7 pennant winners and was a key contributer on all but the last one. But he wasn't identified strongly with anyone of those teams, in contrast to Schalk and the White Sox.

I like Schang as a player and I would be down with him in the hall, but I am not convinced that he was a class about Schalk. I think part of it too is that they have similar names. I mean that seriously.

[Brad Harris]

Schang gets my vote. I think Schalk's only real argument for enshrinement is to be seen in the argument as greatest defensive catcher ever.

If Schalk, why not Bob Boone or Jim Sundberg? Schang, to my mind, is Roger Bresnahan, but better. Unfortunate he was eclipsed by Cochrane/Hartnett/Dickey so soon after his career was over.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Schang gets my vote. I think Schalk's only real argument for enshrinement is to be seen in the argument as greatest defensive catcher ever.

If Schalk, why not Bob Boone or Jim Sundberg? Schang, to my mind, is Roger Bresnahan, but better. Unfortunate he was eclipsed by Cochrane/Hartnett/Dickey so soon after his career was over.

Boone actually has a pretty good case. At the time Boone was winding down his career, there was a consensus developing that he would be a HOFer, and he may have been one had Fisk not broken (by one game) his record for games played at catcher. Boone was a tremendous, tremendous defensive catcher, and a pivotal player for the teams he played for. Boone is a better player than Schalk, Schang, and Sundberg.

I don't consider Schalk OR Schang as particularly good HOF candidates, but this is one case, IMO, where, if one has to go in and the other not go in, the right guy (Schalk) is in. Schalk, to me, has the edge on Schang on defense (big edge), games caught, and the fact that Schalk was the first true career full-time catcher of the 20th century; he was not a platoon player, or part of a "battery". In the early part of the century, it was practice to name in the newspapers the starting "battery"; the pitcher AND the catcher; this practice faded as teams began to name one catcher the primary starter. Schang only had 400 ABs twice in his career; Schalk had over 400 ABs seven times. Schalk, IMO, is to Bob Boone as Schang is to Ron Hassey. Schang is better than Hassey, but not by much; his stats are inflated by the era he played in. Hassey is the same type of player as Schang; a half-time platoon catcher who had some good years with the bat, but never could quite take the whole job. I used to think Schang was the better player, but in re-examining the question, I rate Schalk ahead of Schang on defense and full-time play.

[KCGHOST]

To me Schalk was a poor HoF selection and falls in the realm of "mistakes". His candidacy got a big boost from Comiskey for being a member of the 1919 Black Sox who didn't take part in throwing games.

Schang was comparable to Schalk, but to me that isn't a recommendation for the HoF. And to think about Boone and Sundberg would be a sad indictment about what we have learned about evaluating players over the last couple decades.

[HDH]

Especially with C, its hard to judge defensive greatness with statistcs. In Ray Schalk's case, he has so many assists year after year, there has to be something to it. Wally Scahng's assists really don't compare with Schalk's. I think we should believe the testimony that Schalk was special defensivly. Hos contemporaries were pretty critical of each other and would say if one player had weaknesses. Although Wally Schang appears better offensively, I don't consider him nearly good to merit HOF.