Pee Wee's in, Phil's in, what about Slats?

[JACKIE42]

MARTY MARION

Like Maz and Jim Hegan, Marion should make the Hall hecause he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time; indeed, his nickname is Mr. Shortstop. How good? The tall, skinny (aka. Slats) North Carolinian was the NL's 1944 MVP despite the fact that he hit .267,, even though teammate Musial was .347, Baseball pundits generally rank him with Luis Aparicio and Ozzie Smith as the finest fielding shortstops ever. During his era, however, he was overshadowed by Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese and Phil Rizzuto, all of whom are in Cooperstown and all of whom, with the exception of the Scooter, were heftier hitters. He did lead the NL in doubles with 38 in 1942 and in fielding percentage three times. Of course, a fielder with the great range a Marty Marion possessed a disadvantage in fielding percentage because he will go after more balls than a lead foot. In any case, the BBWA favors sluggers over singles hitters, offense over defense, strikeouts artists over finesse pitchers.

Branch Rickey, the creator of the modern farm system had dozens of Cardinal farm teams in the '20s and '30s. Usually there were two or three major league caliber players at each position, all under contract to the Cards. It was effective, of course, as the Cards won pennants in '26, '28, '30, '31, '34, '42, '43, '44 and '46, with Marion on the last four clubs. Rickey himself signed Slats in the mid '30s, inking Marion and a buddy to unheard of four-year contracts. He hit .278 his rookie year (1940), dazzled fans and experts alike with his graceful, spectacular style and became, with Pee Wee, the dominant NL shortstop of the '40s.

As well as the four World Series that he played in with Musial, Harry "The Hat" Walker, the Cooper brothers, Terry Moore and Enos Slaughter, he made six All Star teams between 1943 and 1950. By the early '50s a childhood leg injury flared up and an operation revealed too much destroyed cartilage to continue playing. He remained close to the game, managing the Cards in '51, the Browns in '52-3 and the Chisox from late '54-'56. In 1956 he passed on some off his immense knowledge to a rookie from Venezuela-Luis Aparicio.

[Eddie Collins]

Well, Phil and Pee Wee should NOT be in, so neither should Marty.

[Brad Harris]

Was Marion a good player? Certainly. Was he a Hall of Fame-caliber player? No, he wasn't.

And if it makes you feel better, Rizzuto shouldn't be in there either.

I can think of at least two eligible shortstops that I could support for election, neither of whom is Marion.

And...in case you've missed it, a great many of the 20 shortstops enshrined in Cooperstown are their largely (if not exclusively) for their defense.

[The Commissioner]

I would say that Marion has just as good of a case, if not better, than Ozzie Smith has for being in the Hall.


I'm curious what happened to the mindset of the voters over the past twenty years regarding Marion, though? I remember when I was growing up that it always used to be said that if Reese or Rizzuto made the Hall of Fame that Marion would definitely be enshrined as well. Well, since then both Reese and Rizzuto have been inducted yet Slats is still on the outside looking in. Where did this shift in thinking come from? Is it just that voters now are just too young to remember him? Did James or someone else write against his induction? What shifted?

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by JACKIE42
I think your right about the voters being to young to remember Slats. Do you think it could also have something to do with Reese and Rizzuto playing for more high profile teams?

I'm sure that probably has a lot to do with it. I've never bought into the whole "New York bias" argument regarding players, but the size of the markets is in all likelihood a factor here. I would imagine that there are a lot more people who remember growing up in New York watching those two play than grew up watching Marion in St. Louis. Certainly no one can claim that he didn't earn as much exposure from not leading his team to the post season. Marion's Cardinals won four pennants and three World Championships, in no small part due to his play and leadership.

[nightal]

Marion's not a Hall of Famer. This from a Cardinal fan.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Freakshow
Bill James once wrote that a player's case for the Hall comes to rest more and more on his numbers as time passes. At one time, Marion reached 40% support on the BBWAA ballot, more support than Rizzuto (and I think Reese) ever received.

Simply put, it cannot be shown statistically that Marion deserves to be in the Hall. In the new BJHBA, James rates the top 100 at each position. At shortstop Reese is #10, Rizzuto is #16, Marion is #45, ranked lower than every shortstop in the hall of fame.

That's purely James' opinion, though. Why should James' rankings have any bearing on Hall worthiness? Who died and made him the official arbiter of who deserves enshrinement? Are the only stats that we are supposed to count now those of James' rankings. I still say a solid case could be made that Marion is every bit as worthy for Cooperstown as Ozzie Smith is. Out of curiosity, where does James rank Ozzie?

[Freakshow]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
That's purely James' opinion, though. Why should James' rankings have any bearing on Hall worthiness? Who died and made him the official arbiter of who deserves enshrinement? Are the only stats that we are supposed to count now those of James' rankings. I still say a solid case could be made that Marion is every bit as worthy for Cooperstown as Ozzie Smith is. Out of curiosity, where does James rank Ozzie?

While certainly not perfect (the author himself would be the first to admit as much) James' ratings are the best available. Until someone improves upon it, it would behoove anyone interested in the topic to inform themselves about his methods.

Ozzie is #7 among all-time shortstops, superior to Slats in every facet of the game.

[Cougar]

I don't have a strong opinion either way. I'd be fine with it if Marion were inducted, and he's got an adequate case on the fielding, postseason, MVP, comps, etc. He wouldn't degrade the Hall or anything; I don't think he'd even be the worst SS in there.

But...there are a fair number of SS I'd put in ahead of him (let along players at other positions).

[Cougar]

Oh, and if he's going in, it should be done soon. Marion's still living, but he's 86. You don't need to consult actuarial tables to know that time's running out on an in-person acceptance speech.

Really, this is up to Cardinal fans. Yankee fans got Scooter in. Phillie fans got Whitey Ashburn in. Pirate fans got Mazeroski in. Any bandwagon has to begin with the hometown fans.

One real problem is, sadly, that relatively few people are still with us who actually saw Slats Marion play. From what oldtimers say, I'd have sure liked to.

From the remove of time, just looking at the stats, it's hard to know if we're looking at a 1940's Ozzie Smith or a 1940's Mark Belanger. Given contemporary opinions, it's probable he was closer to Smith than Belanger, but it's hard to really know for sure.

It helps to have a high profile contemporary rattling the cage for you. What does Musial think of Slats? He moved heaven and earth for Red Schoendienst before; was that his borderline HOF through Vet Committee allotment?

Vizquel could possibly be a comp, but given the MVP, etc., he'd be better than that. Thoughts?

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Freakshow
While certainly not perfect (the author himself would be the first to admit as much) James' ratings are the best available. Until someone improves upon it, it would behoove anyone interested in the topic to inform themselves about his methods.

Ozzie is #7 among all-time shortstops, superior to Slats in every facet of the game.

Freakshow, let me attempt to clarify my position on James regarding all this. I have no problem with him using his rankings. However, I have a problem when others such as yourself quote them as if they were statistics. Freakshow, I've read enough of your posts to know that you are a very intelligent person. Therefore, I know that you are capable of making strong arguments to support your case, I am sure that James, himself, has made strong arguments to support his conclusions as well. However, quoting James' results themselves as evidence does not prove anything. I wouldn't mind if you would quote his methodology, for example, and say Marion ranks #45 due to "these specific reasons..." Right now, though, you are simply quoting James' results and conclusions as if they themselves can be thrown into the mix of batting averages, fielding averages, etc. Hypothetically, for example, it makes no sense to argue that "the reasons why Marion does not deserve enshrinement are his low batting average, his low runs batted in totals, and Bill James' rankings". The first two examples, while they may be opinionated as to what constitutes "a low total", are based on stats that anyone can look up. The third is based simply on man's opinion. Why should we accept that one person's opinion on pure face value without knowing the basis for his methodology. He may have some valid points there. However simply saying that James' thinks someone deos not belong in the Hall of Fame means nothing to me. I personally consider Jackie42 to be far for knowledgable than James. He thinks Marion should go in. Should I simply quote the Jackie42 ranking system instead and offer that as evidence?

[The Commissioner]

Let me just add for example, how does James show Ozzie to be superior to Slats in "every aspect of the game"? I'd like to see these aspects broken down so that we may judge for ourselves.

[Cougar]

James's rankings are based mainly (thoguh not completely, or simply) on his win share calculations. It took a book to explain how they were calculated, but given the rankings have reasonable face validity, they're pretty good, I think.

The big difference here is that (a) Marion's offense didn't even quite measure up to Rizzuto's, let alone Reese's or Alvin Dark's, and (b) some of Marion's best seasons were during the war against more suspect competition, and (c) career length is very low for a HOF.

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Cougar
James's rankings are based mainly (thoguh not completely, or simply) on his win share calculations. It took a book to explain how they were calculated, but given the rankings have reasonable face validity, they're pretty good, I think.

This is the same win shares system that ranks Bobby Murcer with a higher value than Luis Tiant?

[Brad Harris]

Jackie42,

It's difficult for me to tell sometimes given how little I enjoy debating with you. Is the consistent lashing out by you directed at me specifically, or against anyone - in general - that disagrees with you and/or other Brooklyn zealots?

I guess it's time to give your fallacious argument a little more attention now.

It is incumbent on the supporters of any candidate for the Hall of Fame to make the best case possible for that candidate's election. The burden of proof does not rest with those who oppose a candidacy. So I ask you, Jackie42...why should Marty Marion be elected to the Hall of Fame?

I'll take your initial post as being your "case" on his behalf:

Originally posted by JACKIE42
MARTY MARION

Like Maz and Jim Hegan, Marion should make the Hall hecause he was one of the greatest defensive players of all time; indeed, his nickname is Mr. Shortstop. How good? The tall, skinny (aka. Slats) North Carolinian was the NL's 1944 MVP despite the fact that he hit .267,, even though teammate Musial was .347, Baseball pundits generally rank him with Luis Aparicio and Ozzie Smith as the finest fielding shortstops ever. During his era, however, he was overshadowed by Luke Appling, Lou Boudreau, Pee Wee Reese and Phil Rizzuto, all of whom are in Cooperstown and all of whom, with the exception of the Scooter, were heftier hitters. He did lead the NL in doubles with 38 in 1942 and in fielding percentage three times. Of course, a fielder with the great range a Marty Marion possessed a disadvantage in fielding percentage because he will go after more balls than a lead foot. In any case, the BBWA favors sluggers over singles hitters, offense over defense, strikeouts artists over finesse pitchers.

Branch Rickey, the creator of the modern farm system had dozens of Cardinal farm teams in the '20s and '30s. Usually there were two or three major league caliber players at each position, all under contract to the Cards. It was effective, of course, as the Cards won pennants in '26, '28, '30, '31, '34, '42, '43, '44 and '46, with Marion on the last four clubs. Rickey himself signed Slats in the mid '30s, inking Marion and a buddy to unheard of four-year contracts. He hit .278 his rookie year (1940), dazzled fans and experts alike with his graceful, spectacular style and became, with Pee Wee, the dominant NL shortstop of the '40s.

As well as the four World Series that he played in with Musial, Harry "The Hat" Walker, the Cooper brothers, Terry Moore and Enos Slaughter, he made six All Star teams between 1943 and 1950. By the early '50s a childhood leg injury flared up and an operation revealed too much destroyed cartilage to continue playing. He remained close to the game, managing the Cards in '51, the Browns in '52-3 and the Chisox from late '54-'56. In 1956 he passed on some off his immense knowledge to a rookie from Venezuela-Luis Aparicio.

Point-by-point, then.

(1) I will concede that Marion is "one of the greatest defensive players of all time" at his position. However, that this constitutes a Hall of Famer is far from a certainty. True, some players have been elected largely on their defense. And I - though I am in the minority on this point, it seems - happen to believe a strong case is available to the greatest defensive player at each position based on that supposition. Hence, the elections of Mazeroski and Smith aren't anathema to me as they are to some. However...there is no justification for electing "one of the greatest defensive players" because that would necessitate the election of all of the defensive greats at each position. It would be indefinsible to elect Marion on that basis and not elect Dave Concepcion, Bad Bill Dahlen, Pebbly Jack Glasscock, Omar Vizquel, etc. Apparently you either believe Jim Hegan belongs in the Hall of Fame, too, based on your comment. I'll leave that alone though as we're dealing with Marion here.

(2) I've got a copy of Total Baseball and I've looked on the 'net and I see that Marion's nicknames were "The Octopus" and "Slats". Please document the "Mr. Shortstop" nickname. Or is that just something that Marion supporters call him amongst themselves?

(3) Marion winning the 1944 NL MVP was an abberation. He was not the most valuable player in the leauge that year; that was one of the biggest mistakes the writers made in the history of MVP voting. Eight different candidates received at least one first-place vote that year. Heck, [i]Marion only won the Award by a single vote[i], beating out the Cubs' Bill Nicholson. It was the closest MVP vote in history (not counting the 1979 tie). Marion wasn't even the best player on his own team that year. Marion was one of 9 Cardinals to receive a vote for MVP. That was simply the dominant team in the league and the writers' goodwill extended to someone not named Stan Musial, I suppose. (Musial finished 4th in the voting.) Marion reached base a grand total of 178 times and had only 183 total bases that season. And lest you think he was a terror on the basepaths, Marion had just one stolen base all season, too. It was a miserable offensive season. In fact, I'd be interested to see if anyone can find a worse offensive season by a position player in an MVP-winning season. If Marion put together the greatest defensive season ever by a shortstop - in the history of baseball - it wouldn't be enough to overcome his failure at the plate to merit an MVP mention, yet alone a win. The must be one of the poorest selections in MVP history.

(4) While "baseball pundits" do rank Marion highly as a defensive player, it's almost always behind Ozzie Smith and Luis Aparicio, not with them. Again...having the two greatest defensive shortstops in baseball history in the Hall is enough. Even assuming Marion is the third-best ever in the field, that's not sufficient for him to gain election. Plus Smith and Aparicio were fine baserunners and not as bad at the plate as Marion.

(5) Marion was overshadowed in his era by those other shortstops. And justifiably so. They were better. You named four other shortstops, making Marion the 5th most prominent shortstop of his day. How many Hall of Famers were the 5th best player at their position during their era? (Not including outfielders or pitchers?) Is that a Hall of Famer?

(6) So he led the NL in doubles in 1942. So what? Some of the previous doubles-hitters had gone to war by year's end. Others played in fewer games, but had a better 2B/game ratio. Joe Medwick, for example, finished just one 2B behind Marion (38 to 37). Stan Hack was just two doubles behind Marion. Besides, Marion led the league in games once and sacrifice hits twice and never led the league in anything else! That he fluked into the highest doubles total in the leauge during a WWII season, when many of the best pitchers and hitters were gone is hardly defense against his futility with the lumber.

(7) "Of course, a fielder with the great range a Marty Marion possessed a disadvantage in fielding percentage because he will go after more balls than a lead foot." This statement has provided me with much entertainment. Thanks for the laugh! Marion's .969 fielding percentage ranked 39th all-time for shortstops with at least 1,000 games played at that position (thru 2002). However, it's only fair to note that given those same parameters, Marion ranked 3rd all-time at his retirement. (That shows you how fielding percentage has gradually gone up as playing conditions/equipment have improved.) However, Marion's fielding percentage was only 1.4% better than league average during his career. His range factor (i.e. how many balls he got to per game) was 6.1% better than league average. A high range factor does not necessitate a lesser fielding percentage, however. Marion is only 48th all-time in innings played at shorstop, hardly in the range of consideration when discussing the greatest defensive players at the position.

(8) Jackie42, your statement about the voters taking offensive into account over defense, etc. is what I was rebutting earlier. Too bad you had to overreact to my response. If that statement is meant to explain the fact that Marion isn't there, how come other "primarily defensive" shortstops were able to overcome it? How come Aparicio, Smith, Wallace, etc. are in? How did they do it? Simple. They had better cases for election than Marion.

(9) I'm not sure what your point is dragging Branch Rickey and Marion's first contract into the discussion. You mention that a four-year deal for a young player out of the Cards' system was very rare, yet tell us another (unnamed) player was signed to the same contract at the same time as Marion. So the Cardinals won pennants all those years (several you mentioned that Marion had nothing to do with)...so what? Isn't the fact that Marion played for a popular, winning club more evidence that he was simply a fan favorite of a popular club when he won the 1944 MVP? Doesn't that go more towards explaining his popularity in the BBWAA voting early in his Hall of Fame candidacy? He was well-liked is what I infer from it. Marion played alongside many great (and better-than-he-was) players. Musial, Joe Medwick, Johnny Mize, Enos Slaughter and Red Schoendienst are five teammates that are already in the Hall. Plus there's a host of excellent players who aren't in the Hall - the Cooper brothers, Harry Breechen, Harry "the Hat" Walker, Terry Moore, Whitey Kurowski, Lon Warneke, etc. Are we supposed to believe that Marion was anywhere near as good as these stalwarts? No. More likely, "Slats" was just along for the ride. He was a fine defensive player to plug at shortstop and ride the #9 hole in the batting order.

Note: So Marion hit .278 his rookie year? So what? He never reached that mark again, the rest of his career. A guy who's highest single season batting average comes in his rookie year hardly sounds like a Hall of Famer to me.

(10) So Marion clung to the game after he couldn't play anymore. Okay. Fine. But what we've covered, in essence is that Marion had a fine glove - not the best ever - but one of the better ones in history and couldn't hit a lick. He was extremely popular (witness his 6 all-star selections). And he played for some championship teams. He had a brief career and the best thing I can say about him - he was, with Reese, the best shortstop in the NL in the 1940s - is marred by the facts of the case: (a) Boudreau, Appling and Vern Stephens were all significantly better than any NL shortstop during that decade; (b) that decade was marred by talent shortage of WWII; and (c) Marion had practically no career outside of 1940-1949.

I'm sorry...I just don't see how a popular good-glove, no-hit player who played on good teams is a Hall of Famer. You'd have to double the number of shortstops in Cooperstown to justify his election.

[J W]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
This is the same win shares system that ranks Bobby Murcer with a higher value than Luis Tiant?

a) They play different positions. If a team has an established right fielder, that player usually plays through an entire rotation. Multiply #17 by four and you get #68... I think that's roughly equivalent... and it's higher than Tiant, the #52 pitcher.

b) Murcer played in more games; thus has a higher total WS value despite a lower per-162 game average.

c) I could be wrong here... I don't know all the ins and outs of pitching win shares. James called it the hardest to figure out of any position on the field.

I look at it this way. The WS stat is a useful stat. So are the Gray Ink, Black Ink, Standards and Monitor tests. The rankings by James, however, are his educated opinion. He makes it clear that there is a subjective element to the rankings. I formulate my opinion based on his stuff as well as others'. And I keep an eye on rote stats and awards.

For example, I rank Eddie Plank ahead of Phil Niekro any day of the week, no matter how stongly Bill James would try to convince me otherwise.

Actually, having heard my reasoning, he would probably let me go, which would be more than many of us forum members on both sides of the argument would do.

Apologies for going off course on Marion; carry on. I'll give an opinion on him later.

[Designated Fielder]

It is interesting that 3 Cardinals of the 40s are in the Hall, Musial, Schoendiest, and Slaughter. I consider Mize as more a late 30's early 40 player.

Marion is not on the same level as Stan the Man, but where does he fall in comparision to Schoendiest and Slaughter. I think that he would be fairly comparable. I know that there are many who do not think that either Red or Enos are Hall of Fame caliber. Schoendiest has sort of worn the title as a great Cardinal because of his playing and managerial career. He has been connected to the Cardinals in some capacity for over 60 years with the except of the few years with the Giants and Braves. Schoendiest won the Cardinal homer vote where Marion did not. I am not sure of the rationale for Enos although he had a better career than either Red or Marty in my opinion. Maybe, he won the honor based on his mad dash in 46.

[Brad Harris]

Looking the players up on Baseball Prospectus' website, I find that the only shortstop of the 20 in the Hall of Fame with a lower WARP3 than Marion is Travis Jackson.

Dave Concepcion, Bill Dahlen, Dick Groat, Bert Campaneris, Jack Glasscock and Al Dark (among others) all have more career value than Marion.

For an explanation of WARP3, look here.

[Cougar]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Looking the players up on Baseball Prospectus' website, I find that the only shortstop of the 20 in the Hall of Fame with a lower WARP3 than Marion is Travis Jackson.

Dave Concepcion, Bill Dahlen, Dick Groat, Bert Campaneris, Jack Glasscock and Al Dark (among others) all have more career value than Marion.

For an explanation of WARP3, look here.

1. All of the guys you mention have HOF cases of their own. I'd back Dahlen, Concepcion, and Campaneris right now, and with vigor.

I could probably talk myself into the other three too. Glasscock's got a great case; its only deficiency is that it pales before Dahlen's. Dark would be a player-manager combo. Groat's case is probably of similar merit as Marion's, except he was much more of an offensive threat and much more ordinary defensively.

2. It seems likely to me that the main reason Marion's WARP3 is so low relative to these other guys is merely career length. That's not irrelevant, but Marion's case is really built on peak value during his 10-year heyday in the 40's. Players who had longer but lesser heydays (like, say, Glasscock) are going to score better on a measure that rewards career length. Slats would do better on a peak value measure of some kind.

[Brad Harris]

Marion's best claim, that I can buy is that he was the second best SS in the National League in the 1940s (right behind Pee Wee Reese).

However, there were three shortstops in the AL during that decade who were significantly better than either.

Using win shares, Marion is only the 5th best shortstop in the 1940-49 period.

And doesn't that need to be taken with a grain of salt, anyhow, as the 1940s (or at least the war years) were a time of lesser competition? It's not like Joe Gordon or Mickey Vernon's case, where Marion compiled those numbers despite missing years in the war. Marion compiled some of his best numbers when many of the league's top players were in Europe and the Pacific.

[Brad Harris]

Originally posted by The Commissioner
First of all, Chancellor, I'd like to take issue with several the earlier points you made on your list.

Great! I love a challenge!

1) You state that you "... happen to believe a strong case is available to the greatest defensive player at each position based on that supposition. Hence, the elections of Mazeroski and Smith aren't anathema to me as they are to some." Here I would argue that Smith doesn't have an open and shut case as the greatest fielding shortstop ever. As a matter of fact valid cases could be made for Maranville, Marion, and perhaps a few others ahead of him.

A case could be made for others (Maranville, Marion, Aparicio and Dahlen, specifically, in my mind). However...today Ozzie Smith would be the winner of a poll, I believe, on the subject. At the time he was a candidate, a good many BBWAA voters described him as being the greatest ever. Granted this distinction is influenced by subjective factors much more so than offensive evaluations because fielding analysis is somewhat lagging. Granted that Smith's reputation had the benefit of SportsCenter and numerous highlight reels, but Smith is still the concensus pick. Furthermore, Smith won more gold gloves than any other shortstop in history. I think Smith has the strongest case - though it may not be open-and-shut. And, prior to Smith, I was under the impression that a majority of fans had considered Aparicio to have been the greatest defensive shortstop ever prior. The election of Smith was a mistake, in my opinion. It would have behooved the voters to allow for more time and a more thorough analysis of Smith's defensive contributions. In my opinion, without that title - "greatest defensive shortstop ever" - Smith is not a Hall of Famer. Hence, any other shortstop who's primary claim to Cooperstown rests on being "one of the best" is also not a Hall of Famer.

2) I've read many various instances where Marion was referred to as "Mr. Shortstop". While I unfortunately can't think of any right now, it did used to be one of his nicknames. I have a feeling, though, that this like with his playing prowess and reputation may have been forgotten over time. Wait...I found a few sources (gosh, I love the internet). There are biographies by Rich Westcott and Gordon Campbell that incorporate this nickname into their titles. He was also referred to this in the title of a 1945 article from Life Magazine.

Having not found that in either Total Baseball or online at a number of reference sources, I'm surprised the fact-gatherers for "the official encyclopedia of Major League Baseball" haven't added that nickname to Marion's entry. Perhaps you ought to point that out to the editors? I didn't mean to cast doubt on anyone's integrity with regard to this, but merely to inquire where the title came from as I couldn't find it in an available reference source. I would hope the nickname is added to those sources for future researchers to find.

3) Only looking at his offensive numbers I could see how Marion's selection in '44 could at first appear as an abberation. However, I don't recall ever reading much contemporary critcism of the choice, merely much revisionist contrarion opinion. In the book Player's Choice by Eugene V. and Roger A. McCaffrey they state that "The selection was widely applauded at the time". I've also read( though I can't recall the author) Marion referred to that season as "the glue holding the Cardinal machine together". While no one would argue Marion as being an overwhelming consensus choice, enough writer's did obviously note his contributions to his team that year. Keep in mind that he was a field general on a team that, in no small part, won the pennant that season due to their record setting defense.

Whether or not popular opinion rested squarely behind a selection or not, I'm of the opinion that there's absolutely no way that the man's "leadership" (or other intangible) qualities and his sparkling defense could make up for the gaping wound his bat created in that lineup. Stan Musial was the best player on the 1944 Cardinals - by a fair margin. You shouldn't be the MVP of the league when you're not even the MVP of your own team. Marion receives credit for winning the Award, don't get me wrong. It's just that I happen to think it was an undeserved award and that takes away a little of the glamor the award brings to his case.

4) Which "pundits" are we referring to here? While it's true that Marion certainly was nowhere near being the base stealer that Smith and Aparicio each were, his other hitting stats are quite comparable to theirs.

I certainly will concede that Smith and Aparicio were of extremely similar value to Marion in terms of their rate stats, without taking park adjustments into account. Smith and Marion each had a career OPS that was 95% of league average while Aparicio's was 94% of league average. However, Smith and Marion had between 4,500-5,000 more plate appearances than Marion, making their batting rates significantly more impressive.

Of course, if you apply the park effects, Smith comes out on top with an adjusted OPS of 87% of league average while Aparicio and Marion arrive at 82 and 81%, respectively. Of course, we're leaving more detailed/sophisticated statistical analysis out of the discussion for now. That's okay. So the three of them are a wash, offensively. Except for Smith and Aparicio having added value to their offense with their base stealing where Marion did not and the fact that Smith and Aparicio did all this with 4,500+ more times to the plate.

5) I'm not sure why the caliber of the other shortstops then should reflect poorly on Marion? How can it be argued that he both played with all these other great shortstops and was paying in an era with such "lesser competition"? Who says that out of his contemporaries he only ranks fifth anyway? On paper how does Ozzie Smith matchup with his contemporaries (Ripken, Yount, Trammell, Larkin)? Does, and should, that make a difference?

The caliber of the other shortstops [of Marion's era] have a direct impact on whether or not being the best shortstop of the time, 2nd-best shortstop of the time or 5th-best shortstop of the time means anything in a historical context. Marion was playing in an era where four other shortstops were better than him and where quite a few shortstops have already been inducted to the Hall of Fame and he has not: hence the impression of voters being the same - that Marion wasn't as good as Boudreau, Appling, Reese, etc. The "lesser competition" Marion faced is this: he played in an era where many of the best hitters weren't around to challenge for the league doubles lead in 1942. He played in an era where he didn't have to face some of the best pitchers of his day. He played for a few years where his offensive contributions didn't look so bad because there were so many "minor leaguers" playing because of the war.

As for Smith, yes...he was no better than the 5th greatest shortstop of his era. In my opinion, all four shortstops you named were better than Smith. But Smith shouldn't have been elected on the basis of being the 5th-best player at his position. The 5th-best corner outfielder? Sure. The 5th-best pitcher? Why not? But the 5th-best shortstop? I don't think that's a great endorsement in any era in and of itself. And yes...how a player stacks up against his contemporaries is one of the fundamental tests of whether or not he is worthy of election to the Hall of Fame. I would expect that to be a given.

6) I agree that leading the league in only one offensive category once in a player's career does not in any way merit Hall of Fame consideration. However, it does show two things. First of all, it shows that he wasn't as completely inept with the stick as most would be led to believe. He may not have excelled as a hitter, but he wasn't this huge gaping liability in the Cards offense either. Secondly, leading the league in doubles for one season marks one more time that he led the league in a batting category than Smith and Aparicio did combined.

As I've already stated. Marion led the league in doubles in 1942 because (a) there was an exit of talent from the league to the front by 1942; (b) Marion played in the best hitter's park in the league (Sportsman's Park); and (c) Marion had played almost every game that season.

So no...it doesn't show that Marion "wasn't completely inept with the stick" at all. It merely indicates he fluked into leading the league in doubles at a time when the conditions were ripe for such a thing. Marion had more than 29 doubles only one other time in his whole career. For one moment, Marion exceeded his abilities and he has that in the record books now as a reward: lead NL in doubles in 1942. Marion was, an inferior hitter. No...we wasn't "completely inept" with the bat. Heck...he was a major leaguer. But he was one of the poorer hitters among major league regulars through most of his career. Leading the league in doubles once notwithstanding.

7) You state that "...Marion's fielding percentage was only 1.4% better than league average during his career. His range factor (i.e. how many balls he got to per game) was 6.1% better than league average." I'm not sure what numbers you are using to determine that figure because the numbers that I've seen show Marion as having a better fielding percentage compared to the rest of league than Smith does as well as having gotten to more balls per game.

Derived from numbers at Baseball Reference.

[quote]8) The fact that he isn't in the Hall of Fame can't in and of itself constitute a rationale for him not being there.[quote]

That is isn't already enshrined, while other guys with similar cases are tells me that (a) the Hall of Fame has made some mistakes in adding some of those shortstops and (b) voters thought more of those candidates than they did of Marion. My point in #8 in the earlier post was to refute Jackie42's statement about the Hall preferring offense over defense as an excuse for why Marion isn't in.

9) While I agree with the first part of your statement about Marion's contract and association with Rickey being irrelevant to the discussion, I certainly have to take issue with the latter part. While Marion was definitely surrounded by great players, he contributed a lot more than being "along for the ride". I'm certain if you asked any of those Cardinals players they'd tend to feel that Marion aided their careers far more than he hindered them.

I'm sure that's true. I've never read or heard anything that wasn't complimentary to Marion regarding his personality, leadership, character, etc. However, that doesn't make up the (in my mind) significant difference between his on-field value and what he needs to be inducted to the Hall.

10) see #5

Vern Stephens was a better 1940s shortstop and he isn't in the Hall of Fame. Marion's candidacy isn't a joke, by any means. It's just that he falls short, in my opinion.

I would like for people who support Marion's candidacy to make a case for him and stop debating the case against him for a moment. It is my opinion that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who believe he deserves to be enshrined.

What evidence do you find most compelling? What's your best case?

I'm not making the assumption, Commish, that you think he does deserve election. But I'm asking...

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Chancellor
I would like for people who support Marion's candidacy to make a case for him and stop debating the case against him for a moment. It is my opinion that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who believe he deserves to be enshrined.

That's fair enough, but I'm not sure that the two are that distinctive and not somewhat intertwined. I believe the case for and the counter arguments to the case against blur into one another. I will say as a starting point, though, that if you truly believe that Ozzie Smith does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame, then I'm not sure I can prove Marion does either. I can make the case for Marion being as worthy of induction as Smith, Reese, and Rizzuto, but significantly more so than any of them? Certainly not.

Let me first go back and address just a few of the specific points made against Marion before I proceed, though:

As for Smith being "the greatest ever", you're correct in that the perception at the time was of that. The arguments I would make against that being a reasonable rationale, however, are that we cannot possibly separate how much of that is an objective reality and how much is a myth perpetuated by the media age in which we live. There just is no way of doing that. At one point Marion too was considered the best in the game, perhaps the best ever. Had we the distance of time from Smith, as per your suggestion, we might be able to see how much of Smith's reputation held up over time. We can't though. What we do know is that at one time Marion was thought of in the same, if not even more elevated, manner that Smith is. After all, there are still people living that saw them both play who will swear to Marion's superiority. Unfortunately the tangible evidence we need to support that claim can't be made. There were no Gold Gloves in Marion's time and we cannot estimate how many he may have won. There do not exist the countless highlight reels captured on video of Marion that we have for Smith. This is pure conjecture on my part, but I truly believe that had their situations been reversed in those regards, that so too would their Hall of Fame status.

Regarding the 1944 MVP award, while I agree that there might not be any manner in which to measure a man's leadership qualities, defense as opposed to offense, and overall "value" to his squad, hitting stats alone do not make on a Most Valuable Player. I would also hardly call his bat a "gaping wound" in the Cardinal's lineup. Keep in mind that 63 runs batted in and a .267 BA is a luxury that most teams would for kill for out of the #8 spot in their lineup. While there can be no doubt that Musial was the team, if not the league's, most valuable batter, those of us that did not see Marion's stellar play that season on the field can not re-estimate and re-evaluate with any degree of certitude his contributions, or lack thereof, to that squad. In today's juiced up game of homerun derby, while defense is a prized asset, we can forget what a truly immeasurable and integral part of the game and the strategy of the game it played in years past. In 1944 the Cardinals set Major League records for fewest errors and highest fielding percentage ever by a squad. While both records, would fall on the ML level within a few short years and on the NL level within the next decade, at the time this was a tremendous feat which gave the Cards a distinct advantage over their opponents. In 1944 there was only one other NL team that didn't finish with over 55 more errors than the Cardinals. Spearheading that effort was the spectacular play of Marty Marion. How much of a difference did his play truly make? No one can estimate. All I know is that we certainly can't, 60 years later, re-estimate it in a diminished light without evidence. At the time it certainly was not a fluke. I offer as proof the Sporting News Awards given separately at the time. Surely, if Marion's award was so unjust the writers from that publication would have seen fit to give the honor to Musial, Nicholson, or some other more worthy player. However, not only did they affirm the choice of the baseball writers at the time by bestowing him with the N.L. MVP award for 1944, but also by honoring him with the ML Player of the Year of which there were not even separate league awards. Marion completed the hat trick that year.

As for the comparative batting stats, please counselor, the spin stops here. When you say "Of course, we're leaving more detailed/sophisticated statistical analysis out of the discussion for now." that's just couching it unfair language. Chancellor, I watch Fox too and you, sir, are no Sean Hannity. Seriously, though... when you say that, it is assuming that park factors are somehow a more advanced or "sophisticated" tool for measuring statistics. I do not believe that they are, or at least for the time being to the point that they have been developed thus far, that they are with any degree of reliability. You see them as an enlightened advancement, while I view them as being specious in nature.

As for the case of why Slats deserves a slot on the Hall of Fame roster, he was simply "one of the best to ever play the position". I'm sorry that I can't definitively say he was the best ever, however, I don't feel that title can be awarded to anyone at any position. Therefore, the highest accolade one can reasonably afford anyone is "one of the best". When a player has proved himself to be among that elite group, that small handful, that can rightly lay claim on that title, they deserve to receive official recognition of it with enshrinement in Cooperstown. Marion is one of those rare breed of ballplayers that transcended the mere stats and elevated the teams he played for to another level through his brilliance. While certainly no one would argue for the induction of the greatest fielding pitcher or center fielder into Cooperstown on that basis alone, keep in mind the traditional role of the shortstop. For the most part, throughout history it has been a position where the priority was placed on the glove and not on batting skills. In our A-Rod era it is easy to forget that. Certainly there were exceptions to that rule. Appling, Cronin, and Stevens each greatly outshone Marion at the plate. However, none truly helped define or excel to the manner at their position that Marion did. Others that have excelled to that degree such as Maranville are recognized. There was one exception in the history of baseball that can be regarded as truly doing both, but if everyone had to match Mr. Wagner's qualifications for the Hall it would surely be a short museum tour. No Marion doesn't come close to being Wagner. however, he does match up well with Ozzie, with Reese, with Rizzuto.

Just for an example let's see how he stacks up against Ozzie Smith in a number of categories (once again, as I say if you don't believe that Smith deserves to be there, then you probably will not be convinced as to Marion's worthiness either):

BA: MARION .263, Smith .262
SL%: MARION .345, Smith .328
OB%: SMITH .337, Marion .323
PTs above league BA: SMITH even, Marion -.10
PTS above league OB%: SMITH +.09, Marion -.23
PTS above league SL%: MARION -.47, Smith -.62
Runs per AB: SMITH .138, Marion .109
RBI per AB: MARION .113, Smith .084

Batting wise, Chancellor, I would have to agree with your assessment that it is pretty much "a wash". We can go back and forth with park factors vs. watered down expansion rosters vs. depleted war staffs vs. modern training facilities, medicine, travel conditions, etc. and it's still pretty much going to come out as a wash. Let's look at fielding...

FA: SMITH .978, Marion .969
PTs above LG FA: MARION .13, Smith .12
Successful chances per game: MARION 5.05, Smith 5.03
Double plays per game: SMITH .633, Marion .632

You know...I'd kind of have to call that a wash as well. It would be almost impossible for them to get any closer than that. Ostensibly, it would appear that Smiths fielding percentage would blow Marion away, but if you are going to weigh park factors concerning batting, then the same needs to be done in regards to fielding as well. Marion certainly didn't have the advantage of possessing the padded basket on the back of his hand that Ozzie did. Also groundskeeping conditions were horrendous at the time. Marion was thought of as having a weird superstition at the time because he would take the time to meticulous groom his area on the field himself. That's not trying to put Ozzie down, just drawing a contrast to help explain the .009 disparity in FA. Let's look at some of the names that Marion has been most often compared to (Smith, Aparicio, Reese, Rizzuto). He handled more successful chances per game than any of them. Plus his fielding average was higher in comparison to the rest of the league than any of them.

Now let's look at various career highlights...

Years leading the league in any batting category: MARION 1, Smith 0
Pennants won: MARION 4, Smith 3
World Series titles: MARION 3, Smith 1
Years leading WS in batting average: MARION 1, Smith 0
Years leading WS in slugging percentage: MARION 1, Smith 0
Pct. of years played that team won WS: MARION 23.1%, Smith 5.3%
Pct. of years played that team won pennant: MARION 30.8%, Smith 15.8%
MVP awards: MARION 1, Smith 0
Years receiving MVP vote: MARION 7, Smith 6
Pct. of years played receiving MVP vote: MARION 54%, Smith 32%
Times in top 10 MVP votes: MARION 3, Smith 1
Total MVP votes: MARION 375, Smith 226

Do the above numbers prove that Marion was better than Smith? No. To be quite fair to Ozzie they don't. However, they do reveal a few things. First of all that if you look at Marion's accomplishments when viewed on a historic basis are quite comparable to the person that "Bill James ranks as the #7 shortstop of all-time" (for whatever that's worth) and that most people, myself included, deem to be exceptionally Hall worthy, Ozzie Smith. Secondly, they show that in his own time Marion was not only considered a great and a valuable shortstop, but one of the top players in the league.

Let's now peek at the stats which truly count the most, though...
Gold Glove Awards: SMITH 13, Marion 0
Opening day backflips: SMITH 19, Marion 0
Sportscenter highlights: SMITH too numerous to count, Marion 0

I'm afraid that as much as we would like to believe that all the preceding stats mean something, on the grand scheme of things those last three are the ones which matter most in voters' eyes.

Marty Marion is a man that dazzled fans and players alike with his defensive wizardry and helped lead his team to victory time and time again. He belongs in that rarified, and yes elite, category that includes the Ozzie Smiths and Bill Mazeroskis. Off the field he contributed to baseball by being instrumental in instigating the establishment of the pension plan. We are fortunate enough to still have Marty Marion with us. Whether it is done now or by those re-evaluating today's re-evaluations of him one hundred years from now, Marion will eventually be recognized as one of the all-time greats with a plaque in Cooperstown. Let us, while we have the opportunity, do what we have failed on so many other occasions to do... allow him this accolade during his lifetime. Frankly, he earned it!

[Designated Fielder]

I guess the question that I have that someone with more expertise than I can answer is why: Schoendiest and Slaughter over Marion. It seems like one should not only debate Marion against Reese, Rizutto, but his teammates were admitted. I am at least interested in any thoughts on the subjects.

It does seem like comparison between all peers in the same era should be made. In mock hall of fame voting that is what I do. For instance, I compare Dale Murphy to Andre Dawson. I find Murphy more valuable although both would get my vote.

The only teammate that Murphy had which was a Hall of Famer was Phil Niekro, and Niekro got in based on his 300 wins along with being Mr. Knucker.

Dawson has teammates in Gary Carter and Tim Raines with the Expos, and Ryne Sandberg with the Cubs. Does Carter election give Dawson more votes? Does being on the ballot with Sandberg limit his votes?

[Brad Harris]

I'm not sure I'd rank Ozzie Smith among the top ten shortstops of all-time. I'm positive I wouldn't rank Marion in there.

If Smith and Marion, for all intents and purposes, however, are equals - and that's an "iffy" proposition in my opinion - then it's more argument that Smith should not be in the Hall of Fame.

I will (as always) continue to look into the matter.

Btw...what was Marion's part in developing the pension plan?

[The Commissioner]

Originally posted by Chancellor
Btw...what was Marion's part in developing the pension plan?

I'm not actually sure what the exact role he played was. I've read several sources that cite him as being the chief instigator of the pension plan. However, I'm not sure whether that means that most of the actual proposals themselves were thought up and worked out by Marion himself, or whether he was merely the most vocal and prominent proponent of the measures. Either way, he apparently did play a large part in its establishment.