How close to the HOF line is Walker Cooper?

[jjpm74]

Walker Cooper caught 1223 games during his long career. During that stretch, he amassed a career 116 OPS+, was an 8 time All-Star and managed a 173 CWS. He doesn't have a peak to speak of, but was one of the premiere offensive catchers of his day, finishing his career in the top 5 at his position in BA, SLG%, HR and RBIs. How close to the HOF line is Walker Cooper?

[Paul Wendt]

What about Hall of the Very Good, definitely?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Cooper is well below the HOF line because he was, for the most part, a half-time player. A GOOD half-time player, mind you, but not a HOFer. His credentials are about the same as Terry Steinbach's; he was an all-star at a time when the quality at his position was limited.

Sherm Lollar, Elston Howard, and Del Crandall all rate ahead of Cooper. I would rate fellow Cardinal Tim McCarver ahead of Cooper as well. And we haven't even approached Ted Simmons, Bill Freehan, and Lance Parrish yet.

[Cougar]

I agree with Fuzzy, as usual. I think Cooper is slightly but distinctly below the line.

His best argument is the 8 All-Star appearances -- that bespeaks the respect he was given in his prime. But that's watered down by the war years, the ordinary (at best) defense, and the paucity of his career.

I must point out a mistake -- Cooper played 1473 games, but he only caught 1223. That's really not very many.

I'd place Wally Schang, Thurman Munson, and perhaps Bob Boone in the group plainly ahead of Cooper in the HOF queue as well. Joe Torre, too, if we're calling him a catcher.

In terms of peak...I dunno, maybe one year doesn't make a peak, but 1947 sorta jumps out at you, doesn't it?

[Paul Wendt]

Among players older than Cooper,

McGuire, Kling, and Schang seem to me in the grey area
and that is clearly better candidates than Cooper without being strong candidates.

[Cougar]

Among players older than Cooper,

McGuire, Kling, and Schang seem to me in the grey area
and that is clearly better candidates than Cooper without being strong candidates.

I was trying to remember Kling...couldn't resurrect the name. Also a better candidate.

McGuire's an odder case...I suppose he's probably got a better case than Cooper, but I'd be disinclined to press the point.

[KCGHOST]

Cooper was a good player but not an HoFer. Compared to the 14 catchers in the HoF would rank behind all of them in career win shares.

[Domenic]

I place Cooper well below the Hall of Fame line.

Cooper ranks behind the catchers already in the Hall of Fame, with the possible exception of Schalk. There are also catchers that are not in the Hall that I would place ahead of him - Munson, McCarver, Boone, Lollar, Porter, and Simmons. He is also hurt by his lack of total games, which is a product of his never really being a full-time player.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I place Cooper well below the Hall of Fame line.

Cooper ranks behind the catchers already in the Hall of Fame, with the possible exception of Schalk. There are also catchers that are not in the Hall that I would place ahead of him - Munson, McCarver, Boone, Lollar, Porter, and Simmons. He is also hurt by his lack of total games, which is a product of his never really being a full-time player.

Schalk rates ahead of Cooper because (A) he was a true full-time catcher (perhaps the first of his kind), and (B) he was a tremendous defensive catcher.

Cooper had a lifetime .596 Offensive Winning Percentage. If he were a good defensive catcher who was more of a full-time player, he might have something going for him. Cooper was OK defensively, but he simply didn't play enough to get close to the HOF.

[Domenic]

Schalk rates ahead of Cooper because (A) he was a true full-time catcher (perhaps the first of his kind), and (B) he was a tremendous defensive catcher.

I agree - I just feel that, due to Schalk's ineptness with the bat, an argument can be made in favor of Cooper. I wouldn't attempt to make that argument, though.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I agree - I just feel that, due to Schalk's ineptness with the bat, an argument can be made in favor of Cooper. I wouldn't attempt to make that argument, though.

Schalk is a roundly criticized HOF pick, and there is, of course, sound basis for the criticism. His Offensive Winning Percentage for his career was .434, and there are only two other HOFers in the .400s for OWP; Rabbit Maranville and Bill Mazeroski, each of whose selections have received the same sorts of criticism Schalk has.

I mention this because Cooper is a Wally Schang-type player (although Schang was much better) and there has been a debate over Schalk vs. Schang as to who was better, should both be in the HOF, should Schang be in and Schalk not, should either be in at all, yada, yada. In that debate, I'm very much a Schalk man, which is remarkable for me because until I looked at the issue a few years ago, I took the opposite position.

Maranville, Mazeroski, and Schalk are all in the HOF in no small measure because at the time of their induction, each one of them was considered to be a candidate for the best defensive player of all time at their position. That all three (3) of these guys still have people credibly advocating for them as the best defensive player at their positions is remarkable. Schalk was a major league regular at age 20, and Maranville played 2B regularly for a 4th place team at age 41; both of these accomplishments are consistent with exceptional ability.

As for Schalk, his fielding percentage and range factors are well above average, plus he was, as far as I can see, the first true full-time catcher in the history of baseball or, at the least, the first successful full-time catcher. (In Schalk's time, it was customary for newspapers to announce the "battery" for teams; both the starting pitcher AND the starting catcher were named; this custom faded as teams moved to a single #1 catcher.)

Schalk is comparable to Bob Boone, a guy who was considered a potential HOFer at the time of his retirement, and who might have gone into the HOF had he kept the all-time record for games caught (eclipsed by Carlton Fisk by just ONE measly game). Cooper's best comp, Elston Howard, is misleading; Howard missed time due to (A) his race and (B) being stuck behind Yogi Berra; he was a MUCH better player than Walker Cooper, who had every chance to be a full-timer. Schalk's borderline at best, but better than some have made him out to be, and I'm not burning to rip his plaque out of the wall at Cooperstown.

[RuthMayBond]

Maranville, Mazeroski, and Schalk are all in the HOF in no small measure because at the time of their induction, each one of them was considered to be a candidate for the best defensive player of all time at their position.Hasn't worked for Keith Hernandez, Mark Grace, Belanger, Jesse Barfield so well, let's see how it works for Luis Gonzalez

<and Maranville played 2B regularly for a 4th place team at age 41>

slugging .266

<As for Schalk, his fielding percentage and range factors are well above average,>

which doesn't necessarily mean anything

<plus he was, as far as I can see, the first true full-time catcher in the history of baseball or, at the least, the first successful full-time catcher.>

At least George Gibson might dispute that

<Schalk is comparable to Bob Boone, a guy who was considered a potential HOFer at the time of his retirement, and who might have gone into the HOF had he kept the all-time record for games caught (eclipsed by Carlton Fisk by just ONE measly game).>

One game seriously knocked him out?

[RuthMayBond]

As for Schalk, he was, as far as I can see, the first true full-time catcher in the history of baseball Only going back one year before Schalk started, you've got Kling, Dooin, Bill Bergen, Chief Meyers, Billy Sullivan. It is amazing that Schalk was EXCLUSIVELY a catcher but I wouldn't negate the others being full-time catchers because of a handful of games played here and there