Charley Jones

[Cowtipper]

Charley Jones played from 1875 to 1888, hitting .298 with an OPS+ of 150.

He led the league in OBP once, games twice, at-bats once, plate appearances once, runs once, home runs once, RBI twice, walks once, EXBH once, TOB once and AB/HR twice. His grey ink of 162 is 18 points better than the average Hall of Famer's.

Statistically, Jones is similar to only one Hall of Famer: Billy Southworth. The other players he is similar to are Bug Holliday, Harry Rice, Freddy Leach, Socks Seybold, Charlie Hickman, Carl Crawford, Ival Goodman, Roy Johnson, Walt Wilmot.

What do you think about Charley Jones? Should he be in the Hall of Fame?

[SamtheBravesFan]

No way. :p

He played the first half of his career in the infacy of baseball in the short seasons. Not particularly impressive for an outfielder. He doesn't really have much of a case.

[Fuzzy Bear]

No way. :p

He played the first half of his career in the infacy of baseball in the short seasons. Not particularly impressive for an outfielder. He doesn't really have much of a case.

Jones fits Bill James' Definition C for his era:

"Definition C: A Hall of Famer is a player who is consistently among the best in the league at his position. Such a player would ordinarily be the biggest star on his team unless it was a pennant-winning team, in which case he would be regarded as one of the most valuable members of the team. This definition would make room in the Hall of Fame for such players as Billy Williams, Willie Stargell, Billy Herman, Fred Clarke, Johnny Evers, and Harry Heilmann."

Jones had a career OWP of .704, which is within HOF range for a LF. His lifetime BA of .298 was 41 points above league average for his career. These are pretty impressive stats. If they had an All-Star Game in Jones' era, he'd have been a multiple selection.

This had to be balanced against the fact that the game in Jones' time was not as difficult as today's game, or even the game of the 1900s. Jones was never one of the super-elite of his era. I think he's worth discussing, but in the end, baseball was too much of a part time thing, and the game was less demanding and less difficult than it would be in later eras. I simply can't sign off on Jones as a HOFer.

My standards for 19th century players are higher than for 20th century players, and especially for players prior to 1890. These guys played fewer games, against easier pitching, and the "major leagues" did not have a monopoly on the best players. It's one thing to apply Definition C to the players of the 20th century and beyond (and, especially, from the end of the dead ball era on); it's another to apply it to the 19th century players, when the game was far less developed.

[KCGHOST]

There is no problem with the quality of Jones career, but the lack of length and overall production just isn't there. I don't see any point and going back to admit a guy who's career ended 120 years ago and barely surpassed 1100 hits.

[Captain Cold Nose]

I think it's pretty telling that his most comparable HOFer got in because of his managerial career. So he really isn't statistically similar to a HOFer.

Good for his day. Good for him for that. Always good to throw a nod to otherwise forgotten players.

[jjpm74]

There is no problem with the quality of Jones career, but the lack of length and overall production just isn't there. I don't see any point and going back to admit a guy who's career ended 120 years ago and barely surpassed 1100 hits.

This statement shows a lack of understanding for the era Jones played in. For anyone interested in seeing how Charley Jones stacked up and why he is a solid yes for me and many others who focus on this era, read posts 7-15 in this thread. (http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/hall_of_merit/discussion/charley_jones_lip_pike) It is a superb analysis of Charley Jones and what ultimately won me over to the yes camp on him.