Del Pratt

[Cowtipper]

Del Pratt played 13 seasons, from 1912 to 1924. In that time, he hit .292 with 247 stolen bases and 1996 hits. Solid defensively, he led the league five times in total chances per game.

Mostly a second baseman, Pratt led the league in games played five times and in RBI once. He is statistically related to two Hall of Famers: Jimmy Collins and Lou Boudreau, and according to The Baseball Page, he is the 15th best second baseman of all time.

What do you think? Should Pratt be in the Hall of Fame?

[henrich]

I have him behind Evers in his era and I don't think Evers should have made it.

[jjpm74]

Pratt was a great 2nd baseman. He's just below the line for me, but I can definitely see placing him in the same maybe group Myers belongs to.

[dgarza]

I have him behind Evers in his era and I don't think Evers should have made it.Wow, that's pretty harsh.
Or maybe you're giving Evers some tremendous boost.

Pratt was a great 2nd baseman. He's just below the line for me, but I can definitely see placing him in the same maybe group Myers belongs to.Pratt is definitely in the same 2B group as Buddy Myer. I have Pratt a step up, but still in the same group. Actually, he is very close to my HOF line.

Pratt led the AL in 2B POs 5x, 2B Assts 3x, & 2B DPs 3x.

If he would have started a bit sooner than age 24, he could have a solid case. He had the unfortunate luck to play 1/2 his career with the Browns.

[henrich]

Wow, that's pretty harsh.
Or maybe you're giving Evers some tremendous boost.

Pratt is definitely in the same 2B group as Buddy Myer. I have Pratt a step up, but still in the same group. Actually, he is very close to my HOF line.

Pratt led the AL in 2B POs 5x, 2B Assts 3x, & 2B DPs 3x.

If he would have started a bit sooner than age 24, he could have a solid case. He had the unfortunate luck to play 1/2 his career with the Browns.

No offense meant and Evers isn't the worst HOfamer but he's just below the line for me.

[jjpm74]

No offense meant and Evers isn't the worst HOfamer but he's just below the line for me.

He is just below the line for a lot of people and IMO not the huge mistake Tinker is. Comparing Evers to Pratt is a fair comparison, IMO.

[henrich]

He is just below the line for a lot of people and IMO not the huge mistake Tinker is. Comparing Evers to Pratt is a fair comparison, IMO.

I think Chance is the most grievous error of the three, then Tinker then Evers.

[jjpm74]

I think Chance is the most grievous error of the three, then Tinker then Evers.

Chance had a successful managerial career which strengthened his case a great deal.

[leecemark]

--Chance was the most talented of the group. He was a tremendous offense force - the best hitter and baserunner on the best team of the deadball era (and one of the best ever). He didn't play enough for me to endorse him based strictly on his playing career, but his being player-manager of that dynasty definately gets him over the line for me. I see him as the best of the trio, not the worst.
--As for Pratt he was a very good player. If he had a little longer career I might go for him, but as it is he comes up a little short of my standards.

[Freakshow]

Pratt was voted the 12th best MLB Hall candidate from the 1910's. Here are those who received more than one vote:

Sherry Magee 24 85.7%
Heinie Groh 23 82.1%
Larry Doyle 21 75.0%
Bobby Veach 20 71.4%
Gavy Cravath 17 60.7%
George J Burns 16 57.1%
Babe Adams 10 35.7%
Hippo Vaughn 10 35.7%
Jake Daubert 6 21.4%
Ed Konetchy 5 17.9%
Joe Wood 5 17.9%
Del Pratt 4 14.3%
Roger Peckinpaugh 3 10.7%

Pratt is not close to being one of the top 100 candidates among MLB players, so he falls somewhat short of the Hall. Italicized players are among the top 100; Vaughn came close to making it.

[KCGHOST]

I just don't see much of a case for a short career guy who really wasn't a dominant player. If Pratt why not Larry Doyle?? They are very similar players.

And I think we all agree that Evers got in for other reasons not of his doing.

[leecemark]

--I do support Doyle, so being similar to him would be to Pratt's credit. Pratt isn't really that similar though. Doyle's OPS+ is 14 points higher (126-112) and he WAS a dominant player at his peak.

[dgarza]

If Pratt why not Larry Doyle?? Larry Doyle is one of the top 20 secondbasemen to have ever played the game.
His case does not depend on anybody else's.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I just don't see much of a case for a short career guy who really wasn't a dominant player. If Pratt why not Larry Doyle?? They are very similar players.

And I think we all agree that Evers got in for other reasons not of his doing.

I think the line of second baseman outside the HOF wanting in from 1900-1930 starts with Larry Doyle. KC is right, except for the idea that Pratt and Doyle are "very" similar.

Doyle was a below average defensive second baseman; his fielding percentage was .004 below league average, and he did not have good range. Pratt, on the other hand, was an above-average fielder, with significantly better range than Pratt:

Here's Doyle:

Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G PO A E DP FP lgFP RFg lgRFg RF9 lgRF9
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
+---- Fielding Sorted by Year ------+
1907 20 NYG NL 2B 69 128 158 26 7 .917 .952 4.14 5.12
1908 21 NYG NL 2B 102 180 291 33 28 .935 .954 4.62 5.03
1909 22 NYG NL 2B 144 292 323 39 51 .940 .938 4.27 4.66
1910 23 NYG NL 2B 151 313 388 53 62 .930 .952 4.64 5.05
1911 24 NYG NL 2B 141 272 340 36 46 .944 .952 4.34 5.03
1912 25 NYG NL 2B 143 313 379 38 68 .948 .955 4.84 5.09
1913 26 NYG NL 2B 130 315 345 31 55 .955 .955 5.08 4.92
1914 27 NYG NL 2B 145 307 379 29 61 .959 .949 4.73 4.89
1915 28 NYG NL 2B 147 313 396 40 66 .947 .955 4.82 4.79
1916 29 TOT NL 2B 122 289 387 27 63 .962 .951 5.54 4.74
NYG NL 2B 113 270 352 26 53 .960 .951 5.50 4.74
CHC NL 2B 9 19 35 1 10 .982 .951 6.00 4.74
1917 30 CHC NL 2B 128 300 348 33 54 .952 .956 5.06 4.96
1918 31 NYG NL 2B 73 121 221 11 24 .969 .957 4.68 5.11
1919 32 NYG NL 2B 100 214 311 24 48 .956 .960 5.25 5.14
1920 33 NYG NL 2B 133 278 389 23 61 .967 .963 5.02 5.45
+---- Fielding Sorted by Position --+
1907 20 NYG NL 2B 69 128 158 26 7 .917 .952 4.14 5.12
1908 21 NYG NL 2B 102 180 291 33 28 .935 .954 4.62 5.03
1909 22 NYG NL 2B 144 292 323 39 51 .940 .938 4.27 4.66
1910 23 NYG NL 2B 151 313 388 53 62 .930 .952 4.64 5.05
1911 24 NYG NL 2B 141 272 340 36 46 .944 .952 4.34 5.03
1912 25 NYG NL 2B 143 313 379 38 68 .948 .955 4.84 5.09
1913 26 NYG NL 2B 130 315 345 31 55 .955 .955 5.08 4.92
1914 27 NYG NL 2B 145 307 379 29 61 .959 .949 4.73 4.89
1915 28 NYG NL 2B 147 313 396 40 66 .947 .955 4.82 4.79
1916 29 TOT NL 2B 122 289 387 27 63 .962 .951 5.54 4.74
NYG NL 2B 113 270 352 26 53 .960 .951 5.50 4.74
CHC NL 2B 9 19 35 1 10 .982 .951 6.00 4.74
1917 30 CHC NL 2B 128 300 348 33 54 .952 .956 5.06 4.96
1918 31 NYG NL 2B 73 121 221 11 24 .969 .957 4.68 5.11
1919 32 NYG NL 2B 100 214 311 24 48 .956 .960 5.25 5.14
1920 33 NYG NL 2B 133 278 389 23 61 .967 .963 5.02 5.45
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Position Total 2B 1728 3635 4655 443 694 .949 .953 4.80 4.99
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+
Overall Total 1728 3635 4655 443 694 .949 .953 4.80 4.99


Here's Pratt:


Year Ag Tm Lg Pos G PO A E DP FP lgFP RFg lgRFg RF9 lgRF9 LF CF RF
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
+---- Fielding Sorted by Year ------+
1912 24 SLB AL 2B 122 273 326 36 49 .943 .945 4.91 4.75
SS 21 45 75 14 12 .896 .920 5.71 5.06
OF 8 19 1 0 0 1.000 .952 2.50 1.98 0 3 5
3B 1 2 5 1 0 .875 .921 7.00 3.30
1913 25 SLB AL 2B 146 364 425 41 56 .951 .954 5.40 4.82
1B 9 76 6 1 4 .988 .986 9.11 10.48
1914 26 SLB AL 2B 152 358 423 46 48 .944 .953 5.14 4.78
OF 5 11 0 0 0 1.000 .957 2.20 1.92 2 0 3
SS 1 3 2 0 0 1.000 .943 5.00 5.20
1915 27 SLB AL 2B 158 417 441 31 82 .965 .956 5.43 4.89
1916 28 SLB AL 2B 158 438 491 33 74 .966 .964 5.88 4.88
1917 29 SLB AL 2B 119 324 353 29 64 .959 .959 5.69 4.94
1B 2 22 2 0 0 1.000 .988 12.00 10.75
1918 30 NYY AL 2B 126 340 386 23 82 .969 .958 5.76 5.31
1919 31 NYY AL 2B 140 315 491 26 64 .969 .961 5.76 5.19
1920 32 NYY AL 2B 154 354 515 26 77 .971 .962 5.64 5.54
1921 33 BOS AL 2B 134 283 408 28 90 .961 .956 5.16 5.35
1922 34 BOS AL 2B 154 362 484 30 80 .966 .966 5.49 5.49
1923 35 DET AL 2B 60 108 140 14 21 .947 .965 4.13 5.35
1B 17 169 10 0 10 1.000 .990 10.53 10.22
3B 12 4 29 4 1 .892 .946 2.75 3.27
1924 36 DET AL 2B 65 133 192 18 38 .948 .966 5.00 5.39
1B 51 496 25 5 35 .990 .989 10.22 10.17
3B 4 2 8 0 0 1.000 .952 2.50 3.00
OF 1 2 0 0 0 1.000 .952 2.00 2.30 1 0 0
+---- Fielding Sorted by Position --+
1913 25 SLB AL 1B 9 76 6 1 4 .988 .986 9.11 10.48
1917 29 SLB AL 1B 2 22 2 0 0 1.000 .988 12.00 10.75
1923 35 DET AL 1B 17 169 10 0 10 1.000 .990 10.53 10.22
1924 36 DET AL 1B 51 496 25 5 35 .990 .989 10.22 10.17

1912 24 SLB AL 2B 122 273 326 36 49 .943 .945 4.91 4.75
1913 25 SLB AL 2B 146 364 425 41 56 .951 .954 5.40 4.82
1914 26 SLB AL 2B 152 358 423 46 48 .944 .953 5.14 4.78
1915 27 SLB AL 2B 158 417 441 31 82 .965 .956 5.43 4.89
1916 28 SLB AL 2B 158 438 491 33 74 .966 .964 5.88 4.88
1917 29 SLB AL 2B 119 324 353 29 64 .959 .959 5.69 4.94
1918 30 NYY AL 2B 126 340 386 23 82 .969 .958 5.76 5.31
1919 31 NYY AL 2B 140 315 491 26 64 .969 .961 5.76 5.19
1920 32 NYY AL 2B 154 354 515 26 77 .971 .962 5.64 5.54
1921 33 BOS AL 2B 134 283 408 28 90 .961 .956 5.16 5.35
1922 34 BOS AL 2B 154 362 484 30 80 .966 .966 5.49 5.49
1923 35 DET AL 2B 60 108 140 14 21 .947 .965 4.13 5.35
1924 36 DET AL 2B 65 133 192 18 38 .948 .966 5.00 5.39

1912 24 SLB AL 3B 1 2 5 1 0 .875 .921 7.00 3.30
1923 35 DET AL 3B 12 4 29 4 1 .892 .946 2.75 3.27
1924 36 DET AL 3B 4 2 8 0 0 1.000 .952 2.50 3.00

1912 24 SLB AL OF 8 19 1 0 0 1.000 .952 2.50 1.98 0 3 5
1914 26 SLB AL OF 5 11 0 0 0 1.000 .957 2.20 1.92 2 0 3
1924 36 DET AL OF 1 2 0 0 0 1.000 .952 2.00 2.30 1 0 0

1912 24 SLB AL SS 21 45 75 14 12 .896 .920 5.71 5.06
1914 26 SLB AL SS 1 3 2 0 0 1.000 .943 5.00 5.20
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
Position Total 2B 1688 4069 5075 381 825 .960 .959 5.42 5.11
1B 79 763 43 6 49 .993 .989 10.20 10.23
SS 22 48 77 14 12 .899 .921 5.68 5.07
3B 17 8 42 5 1 .909 .943 2.94 3.21
OF 14 32 1 0 0 1.000 .954 2.36 1.98 3 3 8
+--------------+---+----+------+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+----+
Overall Total 1820 4920 5238 406 887 .962 .960 5.58 5.29


On the other hand, Doyle was a significantly better offensive player; his Offensive Winning Percentage for his career is .666 to Pratt's .581. That's a significant difference. Doyle was also considered the bigger star, while active; he won an MVP award, something Pratt never came close to. This could be, in part, a function of Doyle playing for a storied New York Giant team for most of his career, while Pratt played for bad teams most of his career. Pratt was traded from the Yankees to the down and out Red Sox before the 1921 season, just when the Yankees began to win pennants.

It is easier to see what kept Pratt out of the HOF than Doyle. I believe that had Pratt ended his career with the Yankees, he may well have made the HOF.

I don't know what kept Doyle out of the HOF. Frankie Frisch, who packed the HOF with many lesser Giants while leading the VC, didn't do so for Doyle. I wonder if Frisch deliberately kept Doyle out of the HOF to ensure that he would be considered the greatest Giant second baseman in history, and that he saw Doyle as a rival to that distinction. It is certainly difficult to see the logic in denying Doyle (and Pratt, for that matter), while opening the door for Dave Bancroft, George Kelly, and Rube Marquard.

[dgarza]

I don't know what kept Doyle out of the HOF. Not sure. Doyle only received a total of 7 votes over the course of 3 years.

[KCGHOST]

Larry Doyle is one of the top 20 secondbasemen to have ever played the game.
His case does not depend on anybody else's.

I was not making a case for Doyle at all. I was simply pointing that if you are going to consider Pratt you have to consider Doyle.

As for similarity using the B-R calculation they (Pratt and Doyle) are each others "most similar" player. Granted that similarity is some what arbitrary. But they are pretty close in WARP3 and career win shares.

[dgarza]

I was not making a case for Doyle at all. I was simply pointing that if you are going to consider Pratt you have to consider Doyle.
Well, yeah, but that generally goes without saying. Doyle is generally ranked above Pratt by a good measure and as a solid HOF-type player, just as Jeff Kent would be.

[csh19792001]

If one wants to push for an unknown of that era and league, why not try Bobby Veach instead? I wouldn't put him in the HOF, but he's about as overlooked among the "very, very good" players as there is.

Shamelessly cut and pasted:

Bobby Veach was the starting left fielder for the Detroit Tigers for eleven years from 1913-1923. Despite being one of the most productive hitters in baseball during his years in Detroit, Veach played in the shadows of three Detroit outfielders who won 16 batting titles and were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame: Ty Cobb in center field and Sam Crawford followed by Harry Heilmann in right field. Noted baseball historian Robert Creamer described Veach as "[s]urely one of the least remembered of the truly fine hitters.” [1]

Veach put up impressive numbers as a batter and was a fine fielder as well. He led the American League in RBIs three times (1915, 1917, and 1918) and was among the league leaders 10 times. Nobody in baseball hit as many RBIs or extra base hits as Veach did during his prime from 1915-1922. In 1919, playing in the final year of the "Dead-ball era," he led the American League in hits (191), doubles (41), and triples (17), and also hit .355 -- No. 2 behind Ty Cobb. Veach also ranked among the American League leaders in batting average six times and hit .306 or better in nine seasons. He had a career batting average of .311.

In addition to hitting for power and average, Veach could also play "small ball," and ranks No. 24 on the All Time Major League list with 271 sacrifice hits. He was also a fine fielder, collecting 3,754 putouts and 207 assists in left field. Veach was also the only player to pinch hit for Babe Ruth (August 9, 1925) in the years after the Babe was converted from a pitcher to an outfielder.

Baseball historian, Bill James, ranks Veach as the 33rd best left fielder of all time. (Bill James, "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (2001), pp. 673-674)

[Fuzzy Bear]

If one wants to push for an unknown of that era and league, why not try Bobby Veach instead? I wouldn't put him in the HOF, but he's about as overlooked among the "very, very good" players as there is.

Shamelessly cut and pasted:

Bobby Veach was the starting left fielder for the Detroit Tigers for eleven years from 1913-1923. Despite being one of the most productive hitters in baseball during his years in Detroit, Veach played in the shadows of three Detroit outfielders who won 16 batting titles and were inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame: Ty Cobb in center field and Sam Crawford followed by Harry Heilmann in right field. Noted baseball historian Robert Creamer described Veach as "[s]urely one of the least remembered of the truly fine hitters.” [1]

Veach put up impressive numbers as a batter and was a fine fielder as well. He led the American League in RBIs three times (1915, 1917, and 1918) and was among the league leaders 10 times. Nobody in baseball hit as many RBIs or extra base hits as Veach did during his prime from 1915-1922. In 1919, playing in the final year of the "Dead-ball era," he led the American League in hits (191), doubles (41), and triples (17), and also hit .355 -- No. 2 behind Ty Cobb. Veach also ranked among the American League leaders in batting average six times and hit .306 or better in nine seasons. He had a career batting average of .311.

In addition to hitting for power and average, Veach could also play "small ball," and ranks No. 24 on the All Time Major League list with 271 sacrifice hits. He was also a fine fielder, collecting 3,754 putouts and 207 assists in left field. Veach was also the only player to pinch hit for Babe Ruth (August 9, 1925) in the years after the Babe was converted from a pitcher to an outfielder.

Baseball historian, Bill James, ranks Veach as the 33rd best left fielder of all time. (Bill James, "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (2001), pp. 673-674)

There's a case to be made for Veach, but the case rests on Veach being judged "better" than some questionable picks.

Larry Doyle was much more highly regarded, while active, as a star.

Del Pratt played a much more demanding defensive position. His career was a bit truncated by trades, which tends to diminsh one's "star" (but not one's real value).

[Paul Wendt]

If one wants to push for an unknown of that era and league, why not try Bobby Veach instead?
. . . Baseball historian, Bill James, ranks Veach as the 33rd best left fielder of all time. (Bill James, "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract" (2001), pp. 673-674)[/I]
Bill James ranks Doyle #20 and Pratt #35 at second base and the rank 17 and 26 among secondbasemen by career win shares (not recommended here).

Pushing Veach rather than Doyle or Pratt would be quirky.