Hack Wilson -vs- Ted Kluszewski HOF?

[ls7plus]

Ted Kluszewski versus Hack Wilson as HOF'ers--Should Hack be in, when Ted is out? Their careers are really quite similar, with each having 5-7 really good seasons, some of them extraordinarily dominant, then petering out quite quickly to the point where their only really retained value was as utility/role players who would occasionally rise to the occasion, and seemingly reach back into the past for a bit of their former greatness once in a while. Hack is in Cooperstown; Ted is only in the Reds HOF, with his uniform # retired.

Ted was a four-time all-star who finished fairly well-up in the MVP voting a number of times, hitting 171 homeruns over four consecutive seasons, and batting .300 or higher in seven differnent seasons. I don't know that there are any other players who have done both who are not in the hall of fame. Ted's biggest season was 49 HR, 141 RBI, .326. Not as impressive as Hack's 1930 season on the surface, but then again, the entire NL hit over .300 in 1930! If Hack is in at Cooperstown on this basis, and considering their obvious career trends and similarities, should not Ted be in also??? He was generally regarded as a good fielding firstbaseman.

Comments if you care/dare?

Larry

[vintagecpa]

I think if Teddy would have had 190 RBI's in one season, he would probably be in also.

[Rickyy]

Yep I think the 191 rbi was the clincher.... add the prev 3 yrs and you got nearly 150 rbi's per and then the lifetime 300 plus avg... I agree about Klu he doesn't get the recognition but he had some big big numbers in his day...

[ls7plus]

I agree too about the 190 or 191 RBI's. Ted was derailed from a potential HOF vote by sciatic nerve/disc problems arising during the '56 season (during which he still hit 35 homeruns), and probably related chronic hip and back problems thereafter. I just thought I'd throw this one out there since the downturn in big Klu's career certainly borders on being tragic. In each of his three consecutive 40-HR seasons, he had less strikeouts than homeruns. It would have been really interesting to see what he would have done had health factors not intervened and had he been able to have had a more normal decline.

Additional thoughts welcome.

Larry

[fkw]

Teds biggest accomplishment IMO has not been mentioned yet... (edited I see Larry did )

Ted his more HRs than SO in 5 straight season.... only 2 players have done it once in last 40 years (Bonds, Brett)...

with an incredible 14 more HRs than SO in 1954 (49 HRs, 35 SOs)


PS the RBI record is 191 not 190 :D

[BlueDevil89]

Agreed --- If you have one of those remarkable achievements (ie - 191 RBI season), it goes a long way to help push you over the top to make it into the HOF.

http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd47/BlueDevilSportscards/Hack%20Wilson/HackWilson1933Goudey211PSA5EX.jpg

[scooter729]

From Baseball Reference, the players with the most comparable career stats to Klu include Kent Hrbek, Mo Vaughn and Eric Karros. So, I have to think that Klu is best left out of Cooperstown.

FWIW, Hack's comparable batters aren't exactly a group of HOFers (Wally Berger, even - yikes - JD Drew!), but as said above, the 1930 season is probably what did the trick.

[novakjr]

I think if a serious attempt were made for Ted, that a lot of other players would come up in discussion and jump right ahead of him...Basically, Ted's a stepping stone to noticing other "more" deserving players.. When I looked at Ted's stats, the first thing that came to my mind was, "Albert Belle blows this guy out of the water". Colavito, Howard and Cash also seem to immediately jump ahead of him.. If we were to think about it alot more, we could probably come up with a list of at least a dozen somewhat similar players that would be more deserving than Ted.

[tedzan]

Ted Kluszewski versus Hack Wilson as HOF'ers--Should Hack be in, when Ted is out? Their careers are really quite similar, with each having 5-7 really good seasons, some of them extraordinarily dominant, then petering out quite quickly to the point where their only really retained value was as utility/role players who would occasionally rise to the occasion, and seemingly reach back into the past for a bit of their former greatness once in a while. Hack is in Cooperstown; Ted is only in the Reds HOF, with his uniform # retired.

Larry

Larry

Although I've been an avid Yankees fan since 1947. Ted Williams and Ted Klu were my favorite non-Yankees when I was a kid (since they were named Ted).
1947 was Klu's rookie year; and it was exciting watching "Mr. Muscles" hit some powerful drives at Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds. But, by comparing Ted
with Hack Wilson, I don't think is a fair comparison. Cincinnati was a 2nd division team for most of the years Ted played for them. And, I think this factor has
prevented Ted from being inducted into the HOF. Consider this very puzzling situation regarding another NL 1st baseman, Gil Hodges. Gil was with a Champion-
ship team for most of his career. He had 7 consecutive 100+ RBI seasons....but, he is not in the HOF....this really mystifies me (and many others).

My point here is that sometimes there is no ryhme or reason who is elected to the HOF and who is passed over. Great thought-provoking thread.

<img src="http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt113/zanted86/tedkluszewski57.jpg" alt="[linked image]">


TED Z

[novakjr]

Ted. Always loved the '57, thanks for posting that. And Yes, Gil not being in the HOF puzzles me to this day.

I've always believed that Gil will get in, and have always collected him as such. I don't think there's any other player that I can say the same for. There's many I've collected on speculation though, but Gil's in his own category. "NON Hall of Famers who are treated as Hall of Famers". For most collectors, generally local heroes will fit that mold, but Gil is somewhat universal in that respect. Maybe Rose and Joe Jackson, but their non-inclusion is obviously due to other factors.

[almostdone]

I have seen a few threads on the topic of how is in the Hall as compared to how has been left out. I think that Kluzuski's carrer was great but not HOF material. I have always thought that Wilson should be the first batter in the Hall of Fame that shouldn't be there. That being said while you can compare their carrers (with out without the 191 RBIs) I don't feel either should be in but both remembered in history much like the the Ted is. Just my humble opinion.
Drew

[LanceRoten]

I tend to agree with an above poster who says Kluszewski appears to be more a stepping stone to other candidates(Cash, Rocky, Frank Howard) and Albert Belle's stats do blow him out the water. But, for a few seasons there Ted was pretty doggone dominant. Personal opinion on Hack Wilson is this, he shouldn't be anywhere near the Hall but is basically because of that one season.

[Robextend]

What is the big difference then, between Hack Wilson and Roger Maris? Wilson had a good career, but his overall numbers certainly don't scream HOF. So if both are basically known for one huge accomplishment why is Wilson in and Maris not?

For the record I don't believe either should be in.

Rob

[E93]

He was very good, but I think it is difficult to argue for HOF worthiness based on such a short career (7 full seasons). If one has to make the argument based on comparisons with relatively weaker HOFers that many don't think deserve to be there, then I think that says it all.
JimB

[LanceRoten]

What is the big difference then, between Hack Wilson and Roger Maris? Wilson had a good career, but his overall numbers certainly don't scream HOF. So if both are basically known for one huge accomplishment why is Wilson in and Maris not?

For the record I don't believe either should be in.

Rob



Good point. Who was on the Vet Committee in '79? Might explain it. It's post Frisch, but some other good ol' boy networking got him in possibly :D. As for Roger, never understood so much support for Maris' HOF bid either. He's not close either IMO.

[Tabe]

Ted's drop off after 1956 is pretty dramatic. He actually had a longer run of greatness than Wilson - 7 seasons vs 5. - but Wilson's peak was higher. What hurts Klu is that he stuck around after he'd stopped being any good and that tainted his legacy. In Wilson's case, he had one last great season (1932), hung around 2 more years, and was gone. Klu had one in 1956 then hung around 5 more years as a shell of himself.

All that said, here's the way I go on this: If your main argument for a guy's inclusion is "But he's better than xxx who's already in", then he doesn't belong. So if the argument is that Klu was better than Wilson - not a given - then he doesn't belong.

Tabe

[B O'Brien]

I think Chris hit the nail on the head. Klu stuck around too long after the drop.

Also the 1930 numbers that Hack put up are crazy! He also had two more HR that he lost out on due to rain stopping games short, that season (if I remember that correctly).

On another note, the 1957 card is one of my all time favs! I had one once, but the hair that kept growing on was a pain to keep trimmed, that's how awesome that card is!!!

Hope all is well,
Bob

[ls7plus]

[QUOTE= Also the 1930 numbers that Hack put up are crazy! He also had two more HR that he lost out on due to rain stopping games short, that season (if I remember that correctly).


Ah, yes those numbers were crazy, but rember the entire national league average for 1930 was .301 or .303, meaning that Hack hit roughly 18% higher than the league average in that season. The ball the NL was using in 1930 was acknowledged to be hotter than hot, and replaced with something less elastic the very next season. If you take a modern season, with a league average of somewhere around .260, that .356 average is down to about
.307.

I don't really believe Ted is HOF material because he simply was physically unable to continue his dominant string long enough. It would seem from his records that he eventually learned to sit on his pitch in certain counts, which took him from more of a line drive hitter to a fearsome longball guy (yes, I know the right field fence was brought in from 366' to 342', but you will also notice a great increase in his homeruns hit on the road with his first big season also. But for four, and perhaps five years, he was not only about as dominant a firstbaseman as anyone in either league was at the time, but also about as dominant as anyone had been at that position in either league for quite awhile! I haven't checked this, but you might have to go back to a younger Greenberg more than a decade earlier, or perhaps Mize to really match up against Kluszewski. THE SANDY KOUFAX only won 20 or more games 3 times and had only 4-5 dominant years also. And before we here the chant about yeah, but Koufax was one of the best pitchers of all time, we must remember that the mound was significantly higher in Koufax's time, thus placing his pitches on a steeper trajectory as they approached the hitter, and the top of the strike zone at that time was up, way up around the shoulders, which gave Koufax a sizeable advantage with his 95+ mph fastball. Bottom line is that when Ted was physically up to standing tall, he stood tall with the best of them!

Considering Koufax, perhaps Don Mattingly should be in the hall of fame--he had a similarly short, incredibly dominant period, and career stats not much different than Kirby Puckett.

Just a few thought, fellows.

Happy Collecting!