The < 100 OPS+ HOFers

[dgarza]

Rank the HOF position players with career OPS+ < 100.
Who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't?

Luis Aparicio
Dave Bancroft
Nellie Fox
Rick Ferrell
Rabbit Maranville
Bill Mazeroski
Pee Wee Reese
Phil Rizzuto
Ray Schalk
Red Schoendienst
Ozzie Smith
Joe Tinker
Lloyd Waner
John Ward

I think I got them all. Let me know if I missed one.

[J W]

I know who belongs at the bottom. The only player on the list who didn't play C or middle infield:

Lloyd Waner

[leecemark]

1) Ozzie Smith - best defensive player of all time
2) PeeWee Reese - good hitter for a SS, good defendr, good leader
3) John Ward - of course he wasn't even primarily a hitter
4) Nellie Fox - heavy on PBP, outstanding defender
5) Rabbit Maranville - huge star based striclty on defense
---------end of guys I actually support
6) Luis Aparicio - very good glove and base runner who played forever
7) Red Schoendienst - probably over the line with post playing career
8) Dave Bancroft - key player on number of penannt winner
9) Phil Rizzuto - even moreso
10) Joe Tinker - best defender on best defensive team ever?
11) Ray Schalk - long held as best defender ever
--------end of gray area
12) Bill Mazeroski - maybe best defender ever at 2B, but the bat:eek:
13) Rick Ferrell - pretty good player and apparently very nice guy
14) Lloyd Waner - only outfielder on this list has be at the bottom

[Paul Wendt]

Rank the HOF position players with career OPS+ < 100.
Who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't?

I think I got them all. Let me know if I missed one.
No idea how to find them.

Depending on your interests here is one thing you might do using career statistics through age XX presented at baseball-reference. For example, using reference age 35, here is one player at each fielding position.

Batting to age 35 (thru so-called "baseball age" age 35 season)
Dave Bancroft
1539 g, >6700 pa, OPS+ 105

Nellie Fox
2213 g, >9500 pa, OPS+ 94

Rick Ferrell
1484 g, >5600 pa, OPS+ 96

Lloyd Waner
1835 g, >7800 pa, OPS+ 100

WARNING: The particular choice of age 35 is relatively good for Bancroft.

The same four players thru age 32:
OPS+ 103, 99, 98, 102

Alternatively one may compare batting skill by something like the maximum career rate at the end of any season with at least some threshold number of plate appearances. For example, at least 5000 pa.

Maximum OPS+ after 5000 pa
105, age 35, ~6700 pa : Bancroft
99, age 31, ~6900 pa : Fox
97, age 34, ~5200 pa : Ferrell
102, age 32, ~7000 pa : Waner

[dgarza]

one thing you might do using career statistics through age XX presented at baseball-reference. How do you do that at Baseball-Reference.com?

[dgarza]

Conventionally, only Nellie Fox, Pee Wee Reese, & Luis Aparicio would make my cut.

1. Nellie Fox - for me, the only one who is real, solid HOFer

Borderline Ins
2. Pee Wee Reese
3. Luis Aparicio

Borderline Outs
4. Red Schoendienst - Red is so close, I'd probably make an exception for him as often as I'd cut him
5. Ozzie Smith - *sigh*...he was a 1st ballot guy, I probably should let him in because he was amazing!

Solid NOs
6. Dave Bancroft
7. John Ward (only as an infielder) - he's "borderline out" as a pitcher, but does his infield career boost that? Not for me.
8. Phil Rizzuto
9. Rick Ferrell
10. Lloyd Waner
11. Rabbit Maranville
12. Joe Tinker
13. Bill Mazeroski
14. Ray Schalk

[Paul Wendt]

Bancroft and Reese were good batters and Tinker became one.
Maranville was good at his peak, enough to raise his average to 94 in his twenties.
Rizzuto was good for a shortstop of his time, I presume, and Smith became good for a shortstop.
Ward was finally above average in the 1890s, his thirties.
Aparicio was never a good batter for a shortstop, merely better than the young Ozzie and the old Rabbit.

All but Reese were considered great fielders in their day, I understand, and Reese was considered good. Upon statistical analysis executed by Bill James several years ago (Win Shares), the only one who doesn't look good is Aparicio. (Omar Vizquel, still playing, is another.)

B : Aparicio
B+: no one
A-: Reese
A : Bancroft
A+: the other five

Recall, Reese and Bancroft are the two good batters.

Of course Bill James gives grade A+ to dozens of other shortstops, including some good batters, some who are in the Hall of Fame, some both (at least Jennings, Wagner, and Boudreau). And there's Bill Dahlen, a good batter with a very long career.

[DoubleX]

I'd Put In: Luis Aparicio, Nellie Fox, Pee Wee Reese, Ozzie Smith, John Ward

On the Fence: Red Schoendienst, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Mazeroski

Out: Dave Bancroft, Rick Ferrell, Phil Rizzuto, Ray Schalk, Joe Tinker, Lloyd Waner

[Paul Wendt]

From the 1930s, the Hall of Fame honors
Cochrane, Dickey, Hartnett, Rick Ferrell, Lombardi, and Lopez. (and isn't there a seventh?)

Dickey, Hartnett, Ferrell, Lopez, Luke Sewell, and Rollie Hemsley played about as long as any catcher had played (and isn't there a seventh?) --measured in games or full seasons, not simply calendar time.

I feel almost sure that in some sense the baseball industry caught up with the rigors of that job and it was "easier" to be a durable and longeved catcher.

Probably Schalk was a pathbreaker in making catcher almost a one-man job, for more than a decade. Certainly Ferrell a generation later was one of a crowd treading that path, and he wasn't one who surpassed Schalk in that dimension. He was a good batter for a catcher, as Schalk probably wasn't, but the norm was up since Schalk's day --the batting norm as well as the durability norm. Enthusiasm for Schalk's work on the field was and is greater than for Ferrell's (Bill James gives them A and B-(!). All things considered, I put Ferrell at the bottom. I see the case for honoring Schalk as a player, not the case for Ferrell.

It isn't clear to me whether the electors misjudged Ferrell as a special player, as he would have been with that record a generation in advance of Schalk, or whether they honored a "baseball man" for a lifelong career.

--
Overall Waner is at the bottom and Ward at the top of this list, but it isn't possible to incorporate either one in a discussion of the others. Stick him in there, or him, but not incorporate him.

Quoting #10:
Fox and Schoendienst are quite similar when it comes to their careers, so I'm unsure as to why some people choose Fox over Schoendienst so abruptly.
. . .
I am trying to understand how Fox is so much better than Schoendienst.
In my opinion, he isn't much better. Fox did play more overall and Schoendienst played more as a mere pinch-hitter/runner.
Fox played more games by a margin of 0.8 full seasons but he played more in the field (fielding games) by a margin of 1.6 seasons.
(That is the one, or those are the two biggest difference(s) between them as quality players. Fielding the same position at the same time, with similar career patterns, no one should see a bigger difference based on the viewer's "careerism", attitude toward military service, etc. Extras? Fox put up his greatest season at the right time, when the Yankees were far below norm, so he has the MVP, the World Series performance (super!). Schoendienst has the '67-68 pennants as manager, succeeding the Alston and the Dodgers as "who the Giants look up to".)

The shortstops listed here were better players than the secondbasemen. (Of course, career OPS+ is a blacker mark at 2B than at SS.) Fox and Schoendienst were good players. The Hall of Fame can't generally take players of their calibre, only the ones who have something extra. Aparicio and Mazeroski do have something extra as Hall of Fame candidates and it is the job of HOF electors to consider those extras too. Aparicio: leader in shortstop playing time; best player or first very good career from Venezuela; revivor of base-stealing. Mazeroski: best GIDP converter, maybe the best fielder at secondbase.

In my opinion the case for Aparicio and Mazeroski in Cooperstown is all about "extras". The case for Fox and Schoendienst depends at looking at them in a favorable light, or favoring a big Hall of Fame: now 300, maybe 350 players rather than 250.

Note: In saying that Fox and Schoendienst were merely "good players" I mean to rank them as quality players below Tinker, Bancroft, Reese, Rizzuto, and Smith at least. That is five of the eight shortstops on this list, and the other three --Ward, Maranville, Aparicio-- all have extras that Fox and Schoendienst lack.

--
Some young people may imagine that shortstops were always out-hitting secondbasemen a la Jeter and A-Rod. Not so.

I'm old enough to remember the Schoendienst extras, handing the ball to Bob Gibson with the encouraging words "Go get those Red Sox." Next year, "Go get those Tigers".

[1905 Giants]

Fox and Schoendienst are quite similar when it comes to their careers, so I'm unsure as to why some people choose Fox over Schoendienst so abruptly.

Schoendienst: 93 OPS+, batting average 19 points above the leagues, solid fielder, OK in the post-season, 10-time All-Star, 5 times in the top ten for batting average, once for on-base percentage, 6 times for doubles and triples each. Difficult player to strikeout.

Fox: 93 OPS+, batting average 24 points above the average, solid fielder, good in the post-season (fewer games, it should be noted), 12-time All-Star, 8 times in the top-ten for batting average, 2 times for on-base percentage, 5 times for doubles, and 11 times for triples. Hard player to strikeout.

Each played for 19 seasons and each was on a pennant-winning team.

Now listen, I'm not the greatest expert when it comes to baseball, and I'm not trying to shoot anybody down, but I am trying to understand how Fox is so much better than Schoendeinst.

Edit: Thanks to Paul Wendt for his response and analysis of the two players.

[Paul Wendt]

How do you do that at Baseball-Reference.com?

Visit a player page, such as Rick Ferrell at baseball-reference (http://www.baseball-reference.com/f/ferreri01.shtml).

Scroll past the familiar season/career tables, past the Leaderboards and Awards, to "most similar by Age".

Choose some age, say 32, and select 'C' at extreme right of the links for that age.

Voila!
Rick Ferrell at bat thru age 32 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/friv/scomp.cgi?I=ferreri01:Rick+Ferrell&st=int&compage=32&age=32) (with his ten "most similar" batters thru age 32)

This is only the basic batting statistics plus OPS+ (or the basic pitching statistics plus ERA+).
No fielding at all.
No plate appearances. No components of PA except AB and BB.
And none of this, unfortunately: "Schoendienst: 93 OPS+, batting average 19 points above the leagues"

At this "career thru age 32" you are only one click away from "career beginning age 33" and all that.

[AG2004]

It isn't clear to me whether the electors misjudged Ferrell as a special player, as he would have been with that record a generation in advance of Schalk, or whether they honored a "baseball man" for a lifelong career.



Personally, I think they got Rick mixed up with his brother, and they really meant to induct the one with the OPS+ of 100.

[Freakshow]

Rank the HOF position players with career OPS+ < 100.
Who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't?

82 Luis Aparicio
98 Dave Bancroft
93 Nellie Fox
95 Rick Ferrell
82 Rabbit Maranville
84 Bill Mazeroski
99 Pee Wee Reese
93 Phil Rizzuto
83 Ray Schalk
93 Red Schoendienst
87 Ozzie Smith
95 Joe Tinker
99 Lloyd Waner
92 John Ward

I think I got them all. Let me know if I missed one.
You got 'em all. Others who are close:

102 Tommy McCarthy
102 Travis Jackson
104 Brooks Robinson
105 Bobby Wallace
106 Johnny Evers
106 Bid McPhee
107 Max Carey
107 Pie Traynor

Lowest ERA+ in HOF:

103 Rube Marquard
104 Catfish Hunter
106 Herb Pennock
107 Pud Galvin
107 Burleigh Grimes
107 Early Wynn
108 Jesse Haines
108 Don Sutton
109 Red Ruffing
110 Jack Chesbro
111 Waite Hoyt
111 Nolan Ryan
112 Chief Bender
113 Robin Roberts

[Brad Harris]

Rank the HOF position players with career OPS+ < 100.
Who belongs in the Hall and who doesn't?

Luis Aparicio
Dave Bancroft
Nellie Fox
Rick Ferrell
Rabbit Maranville
Bill Mazeroski
Pee Wee Reese
Phil Rizzuto
Ray Schalk
Red Schoendienst
Ozzie Smith
Joe Tinker
Lloyd Waner
John Ward

I think I got them all. Let me know if I missed one.

Honestly, I would be happy with none of these players in the Hall of Fame. Ward should have been honored with a lifetime achievement award for his overall contributions to the game. Smith and Mazeroski are the greatest defenders ever at their position (as is Brooks Robinson) but that's not a great argument for the Hall because someone else will always come along who you'll be able to say that about and then what do we do? Say "so in so was elected because he was the greatest defensive player at his position for a couple of decades"? Schalk probably has a similar argument. This list reinforces the notion, for me, that Rick Ferrell (not Tommy McCarthy) is the worst position player in the Hall of Fame.

[Brad Harris]

Lowest ERA+ in HOF:

103 Rube Marquard
104 Catfish Hunter
106 Herb Pennock
107 Pud Galvin
107 Burleigh Grimes
107 Early Wynn
108 Jesse Haines
108 Don Sutton
109 Red Ruffing
110 Jack Chesbro
111 Waite Hoyt
111 Nolan Ryan
112 Chief Bender
113 Robin Roberts

This list should give Jack Morris supporters serious pause for thought.

[BlueBlood]

I'd elect Fox, Reese and Smith as players, Ward as a contributor. The others aren't even really a gray area.

Had Marquard's worst five full seasons been about 10% worse ERA-wise, he may have became the only HOF-er with a below average ERA+. Imagine! :bowdown:

[STLCards2]

Lowest ERA+ in HOF:

103 Rube Marquard
104 Catfish Hunter
106 Herb Pennock
107 Pud Galvin
107 Burleigh Grimes
107 Early Wynn
108 Jesse Haines
108 Don Sutton
109 Red Ruffing
110 Jack Chesbro
111 Waite Hoyt
111 Nolan Ryan
112 Chief Bender
113 Robin Roberts

Note: If offensive created by pitchers were translated into ERA+ (an offensive run created equaling a run prevented),than Ruffing's ERA+ would be around 117, and Wynn's would be around 111. Roberts would be around 116.

[Freakshow]

Which pitcher is better, the first or the second?

W L WL% ERA G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA+
+---+--------------------+-----+--+---+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+----
237 168 .585 3.73 499 477 170 27 3530.0 3215 1603 1464 357 1258 2275 108
254 186 .577 3.90 549 527 175 28 3824.0 3567 1815 1657 389 1390 2478 104

[STLCards2]

Which pitcher is better, the first or the second?

W L WL% ERA G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA+
+---+--------------------+-----+--+---+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+----
237 168 .585 3.73 499 477 170 27 3530.0 3215 1603 1464 357 1258 2275 108
254 186 .577 3.90 549 527 175 28 3824.0 3567 1815 1657 389 1390 2478 104


I would have to know two big things first: 1. how did their defense affect their ERA+, and 2, how were they offensively?

If those two things are equal, I would probably take the 1st guy...barely. A 108 ERA+ with 3,500 IP is slightly more valuable at face value than 3824 IP and a 104 ERA+. Niether guy is a HOFer however. The second guy is obviously Morris. Who is the first guy?

[STLCards2]

Which pitcher is better, the first or the second?

W L WL% ERA G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA+
+---+--------------------+-----+--+---+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+----
237 168 .585 3.73 499 477 170 27 3530.0 3215 1603 1464 357 1258 2275 108
254 186 .577 3.90 549 527 175 28 3824.0 3567 1815 1657 389 1390 2478 104


I would have to know two big things first: 1. how did their defense affect their ERA+, and 2, how were they offensively.

If those two things are equal, I would probably take the 1st guy...barely. A 108 ERA+ with 3,500 IP is slightly more valuable at face value than 3824 IP and a 104 ERA+. Niether guy is a HOFer however. The second guy is obviously Morris. Who is the first guy? David Wells?

[dgarza]

Choose some age, say 32, and select 'C' at extreme right of the links for that age.


Ah, thanks, revelation! I was looking too much at the top.

[dgarza]

Smith and Mazeroski are the greatest defenders ever at their position (as is Brooks Robinson) but that's not a great argument for the Hall because someone else will always come along who you'll be able to say that about and then what do we do? But we could say that "Ozzie Smith was the best SS defender within a century's timespan." That's something that could not be taken away and is valid and impressive.

[highpockets]

Which pitcher is better, the first or the second?

W L WL% ERA G GS CG SHO IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA+
+---+--------------------+-----+--+---+-----+-----+----+---+---+---+---+---+----
237 168 .585 3.73 499 477 170 27 3530.0 3215 1603 1464 357 1258 2275 108
254 186 .577 3.90 549 527 175 28 3824.0 3567 1815 1657 389 1390 2478 104


I looked at those lines and thought, "They could be the same guy, one before and one after his decline phase."

They're both Jack Morris

[jalbright]

Within each grouping, they're simply in alphabetical order.

Nellie Fox--yes
Pee Wee Reese--easily in. We tend to forget those three years at ages 24-26 he served in WWII
Ozzie Smith--yes, but not by as much as many people today think.
John Ward--he's close either as a shortstop or as a pitcher, and I think the combination is enough. Even if that combination isn't enough, add in his post playing influence on the game, and he's got to make it.

==============================================

Phil Rizzuto--I think that with wartime credit, he's just over the bar.

================================================== =

Luis Aparicio--right on the razor's edge. Right now, I give him the benefit of the doubt because he was voted in by the BBWAA.
Rabbit Maranville--another guy who I can rationalize accepting because he was voted in by the BBWAA

================================================

Dave Bancroft--no
Bill Mazeroski--nope. Not enough bat or longevity. If he had more on either count, maybe--but he didn't.
Ray Schalk--no, despite being a wonderful defensive catcher.
Red Schoendienst--no
Joe Tinker--no

================================================

Rick Ferrell--ugh, even giving him credit for catching
Lloyd Waner--even as good a CF as this should hit better than him to get into the Hall.

[Freakshow]

I looked at those lines and thought, "They could be the same guy, one before and one after his decline phase."

They're both Jack Morris
Yes, both are Morris. It's a caution against a myopic focus on a rate stat like OPS+, as well other rate stats. Tail seasons at the begining and end of careers, when a team thought a guy could pitch, should be set aside in a comparative analysis of rates.

How much a pitcher pitches cannot be set aside. Not just in a career but within seasons. It's what makes McGinnity a hall of famer, despite a short career. Morris has ten years of +240 IP, the only pitcher since 1980 that can say that. So his ERA+ doesn't have to be HOF-average for him to have an argument.

Having said that, those who favor peak will have problems with Morris; he never had that "hall of fame" season to establish his case. He never won the Cy Young award, never even runnerup in the voting. His peak in 85-87 is similar to Don Sutton's, a notorious lack-of-peak pitcher, but Don's career was nearly 1500 IP longer.

[Paul Wendt]

[After "1905" published #10, I replied concerning Fox & Schoendienst in #9.]

>>Dickey, Hartnett, Ferrell, Lopez, Luke Sewell, and Rollie Hemsley played about as long as any catcher had played (and isn't there a seventh?) --measured in games or full seasons, not simply calendar time.
<<
The "seventh" may be Lombardi or Cochrane. Their careers were not short. Probably because they were great batters and Hemsley was a weak one, they played about equally in careers of different calendar length. There are eleven catchers from this generation with 12.4 down to 8.3 full seasons at catcher (fse fielding games), no one else with even 5.6 seasons. Cochrane did not play after 1937; the ten others played in the majors until 1940-47.

[moved to new thread]

[dgarza]

Among the HOfers with a career OPS+ < 100, we seem to favor a few SSs and 2Bs.

It is understandable, and I would hope, that no OFers or 1B (or DHs) with a career OPS+ of < 100 would be considered HOFers.
But are there any other catchers or infielders with an OPS+ < 100 that the HOF missed (or current players), but that some of us might think should belong in the HOF?

I don't think I have any on my list, although I could see some thinking of Omar Vizquel. And Maury Wills did get HOF voting support. Neither one of them are my picks, however.

[Westlake]

YES:
Rabbit Maranville
Bill Mazeroski
Pee Wee Reese
Nellie Fox
Ray Schalk
Red Schoendienst
Ozzie Smith
John Ward

NO:
Luis Aparicio
Dave Bancroft
Rick Ferrell
Phil Rizzuto
Joe Tinker
Lloyd Waner

[jjpm74]

Definitely in

John Ward--Ward's WHIP is 1.044 and he was an excellent pitcher
Ozzie Smith--Possibly the best defensive SS in the history of the game
Rabbit Maranville--Excellent fielder, excellent peak
PeeWee Reese

Definitely in with war credit

Phil Rizzuto--A lot of people overlook the fact that he lost 3 full high peak seasons to WWII and still put up offensive numbers that put him very close even with no wartime credit.

Gray area

Bill Mazeroski
Luis Aparicio
Dave Bancroft
Nellie Fox
Red Schoendienst

below the HOF line

Rick Ferrell
Ray Schalk
Joe Tinker

Well below

Tommy McCarthy (OPS+ was 102, but he is a weak case)
Lloyd Waner--Possibly the worst player in the HOF.