Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[Harliduck]

I picked up my SGC 34 Goudey Chick Hafey today, and as I do with all my pickups, I begin to do as much research and digging as I can to learn more about them. I only knew Chick from the fact he was a HOF player...but after looking into his stats...I gotta ask...seriously?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/h/hafeych01.shtml

I also learned he was a hold out several times over money, often was at odds with management, and was traded to the last place Reds at the time to stick it to him. His stats are pedestrian, and his two claims to fame are one, getting the first hit in the first All Star game, and two, one of only two HOF players to wear glasses (Reggie Jackson). I can think of 30 players off the top of my head with better stats, careers, ect before I would put Chick into the HOF. He was inducted in 1971 by the Veterans Committee, which explains a little, but can someone tell me how he is justified to be in the Hall? Am I missing something? He was also an OFer...so I am not buying he was a defensive dynamo...(argument for some SSs or 2Bs). OFers need OFFENSE.


Here is my lastest pickup...great card...

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA3MFg2NTE=/z/btsAAOxy66pRxJZt/$(KGrHqV,!qEFG0rcY2+3BR)JZs64kQ~~60_57.JPG

[Harliduck]

I know Gil Hodges was still alive in 1971...I have this mental picture of him in a bar some place having a cold one and talking to some of his buddies about Chick getting in, and him saying...What do I have to do to get in?? Gil's stats BURY Chicks...I know that's not a rationale to get into the Hall...but...

[glchen]

Frank Frisch

[bender07]

Frank Frisch

Nailed it. I was going to say "he was friends with Frankie Frisch". Same for Jim Bottomley.

[judsonhamlin]

And, if I'm not mistaken, Travis Jackson and High Pockets Kelly also rode the Frisch gravy train as well.

[Peter_Spaeth]

One of MANY utterly undeserving HOFers.

[Harliduck]

Here is a great exert from an article found on Sabr, you guys nailed it -

Hafey was elected to the Hall that year along with Dave Bancroft, Jake Beckley, Joe Kelley, Rube Marquard, and Harry Hooper. Subsequently, many of the selections made by the Veterans Committee, especially during this era, were seen as acts of cronyism, that honorees owed their selection to having been teammates of committee members like Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry rather than being based on merit. Controversy over admission of players chosen in this manner, including Hafey, continues to this day.[17] What gets lost in the continuing dialogue on this matter, at least with respect to Hafey, is that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner – and that is what ought to be remembered.

Full article here...its a great piece -

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/96ae4951

[spec]

Here is a great exert from an article found on Sabr, you guys nailed it -

Hafey was elected to the Hall that year along with Dave Bancroft, Jake Beckley, Joe Kelley, Rube Marquard, and Harry Hooper. Subsequently, many of the selections made by the Veterans Committee, especially during this era, were seen as acts of cronyism, that honorees owed their selection to having been teammates of committee members like Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry rather than being based on merit. Controversy over admission of players chosen in this manner, including Hafey, continues to this day.[17] What gets lost in the continuing dialogue on this matter, at least with respect to Hafey, is that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner – and that is what ought to be remembered.

Full article here...its a great piece -

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/96ae4951

Check out the paragraph before this and you'll see Hafey was honored -- like Elmer Flick (gastritis) -- partly for what might have been had his eyesight not deteriorated.

[ctownboy]

This is why I think some guys should be removed from the HOF. Either that or they create two different Hall Of Fame. One for the truly great players and another for borderline (or never should have beens) like Hafey.

There are a lot of guys who had two or three great years or who had their careers cut short for one reason or another but putting them in the HOF because of it just isn't right.

So what "that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner". Big deal.

Jim Rice had a longer career, a longer peak and put up numbers WAAAAYY better than Hafey yet he is considered a borderline HOF (some say he shouldn't be in). Fred McGriff had a better career. So did Tim Raines and Alan Trammell and Lou Whittaker and Dave Concepcion and Gil Hodges and .....

David

[steve B]

This is why I think some guys should be removed from the HOF. Either that or they create two different Hall Of Fame. One for the truly great players and another for borderline (or never should have beens) like Hafey.

There are a lot of guys who had two or three great years or who had their careers cut short for one reason or another but putting them in the HOF because of it just isn't right.

So what "that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner". Big deal.

Jim Rice had a longer career, a longer peak and put up numbers WAAAAYY better than Hafey yet he is considered a borderline HOF (some say he shouldn't be in). Fred McGriff had a better career. So did Tim Raines and Alan Trammell and Lou Whittaker and Dave Concepcion and Gil Hodges and .....

David

And to skip back to the OP for a moment. Rice also wore glasses towards the end of his career.

Steve B

[Harliduck]

And to skip back to the OP for a moment. Rice also wore glasses towards the end of his career.

Steve B

Wikipedia "fact"...haha...go figure.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Which year did he play on par with Hornsby? He had some great seasons but never touched one season at Hornsby's career BA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS

[the 'stache]

I think this discussion is about to get a little more interesting, because I think that Chick Hafey is deserving of his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I'll put together my argument, and post it here in a little bit.

[Kenny Cole]

The problem with most of these HOF arguments is that there is an entire lack of context. Tommy McCarthy is my textbook example. You look at him and it is certainly fair to say that nothing about him stands out as a player statistically. But he was widely regarded as one of the smartest players of his time, was given credit (rightly or wrongly) for inventing the hit and run, etc. Clearly, he was held in enough esteem that he was elected despite his less than impressive stats as a player. Those stats don't look like much now but it doesn't matter because in the context of the time, he was perceived as one of the smartest, most innovative players who had ever played up to then. That's why he was elected.

I'll let Bill mount the argument for Hafey. IMO, he is in the bottom tier of those who have been elected. But there is always a bottom tier. If the HOF criteria is Ruth, then you only have Ruth and maybe Wiliams (or Bonds, which isn't an argument that I want to get into right now). That isn't a sustainable position. If the bottom tier isn't Hafey, its someone else and we're having the same argument, just about someone else.

My HOF definition is probably more expansive than that of others, so I don't have too much heartburn that he's in. I have more heartburn about the exclusion of players like Doyle, Phillippe, Stan Hack, Leever, Reulbach, Caruthers, Stovey, Van Haltren, Ryan, Bobby Matthews, Mullane, and several negro leaguers (such as Grant Johnson, Chet Brewer, Nip Winters, Ed Wesley, Oliver Marcelle, Dick Lundy and Bill Monroe among others), than I am exorcised about Hafey's election. Hafey got elected in part due to Frisch, but he was a pretty damn good ballplayer even before Frisch pimped him.

[the 'stache]

The problem with most of these HOF arguments is that there is an entire lack of context.

Kenny, that's spooky. I'd finished part of the argument I was making in favor of Chick Haffey, but decided to watch the rest of my movie before diving into the statistical analysis I wanted to present.

But you've touched on the first point I am going to make:

Though I may never hold the title in any official capacity, I consider myself a baseball historian. As a child, I spent a lot of time in bed, and when I couldn't play the game I loved, or watch my friends play, I was reading everything I could find about the history of the game. My parents would find books in the public library, or go to the book store, and buy things for me to read. Friends of our family would also give me books to read. And If I've learned one thing from the literally thousands of hours I've spent reading about the players that have made the game great, it's the importance of context. When considering a player for the Hall of Fame, or determining if a player already in Cooperstown merits inclusion, it is essential to compare a player against their peers.

When I do my comparison of Hafey to the players from his era, I think it's going to be pretty evident that he belongs.

Kudos to you for seeing that. I've had more spirited debates with people on baseball history than I could ever remember. And far too often, the context of the era they played in is completely overlooked.

[the 'stache]

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS

Those numbers are a nice guideline, but they're not definitive. Nor, are they meant to be. Example:

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Pitching - 78 (12), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 151 (94), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 227 (17), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 46 (48), Average HOFer ≈ 50

According to two of these four standards, maybe the greatest pitcher to ever play the game is a below average Hall of Famer.

Who is this? Sandy Koufax, who, like Hafey, had an abbreviated career. Now, Haffey never dominated the league the way Koufax did, granted. But certain players who do not have the eye-popping career numbers can merit inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Those numbers are a nice guideline, but they're not definitive. Nor, are they meant to be. Example:

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Pitching - 78 (12), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 151 (94), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 227 (17), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 46 (48), Average HOFer ≈ 50

According to two of these four standards, maybe the greatest pitcher to ever play the game is a below average Hall of Famer.

Who is this? Sandy Koufax, who, like Hafey, had an abbreviated career. Now, Haffey never dominated the league the way Koufax did, granted. But certain players who do not have the eye-popping career numbers can merit inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

First, Koufax rates very high in two of four categories, Black Ink and Hall of Fame monitor. And even on the two he doesn't rate so high he is way ahead of Hafey, who is just miserable in all four. Second,as you say, Koufax's peak years were SO exceptional that he deserves a little leeway;We can't say the same for Hafey. Third, I am not familiar with anyone saying Koufax is the best pitcher of all time. I think Bill James rates him in the bottom of his top 10 and that seems right to me. Finally, stats of course do not tell all, but the Baseball Reference stats are adjusted for era and are in my estimation pretty reliable.

[bn2cardz]

There is always the "if this person than this person should be in", but mine is the opposite if Ken Williams isn't in than Hafey shouldn't be in. Williams was the first player to hit more home runs than strike out. He accomplished that feat more than once and his overall numbers are just slightly better than Hafey across the board. He just happened to play on the wrong StL team and his teammates weren't the ones doing the voting when Hafey got in.

[the 'stache]

A cursory examination of Hafey's numbers might not blow your socks off. But Hafey is one of those rare exceptions where the numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

“I always thought that if Hafey had been blessed with normal eyesight and good health, he might have been the best right-handed hitter baseball had ever known,”-Branch Rickey

Putting aside Mr. Rickey's appreciation of Hafey's talent, of course, Hall of Fame election has to be based on merit, and not what the player was capable of doing.

Chick Hafey played from 1924 to 1937. He only came to the plate 5,115 times, which is going to immediately limit the wow factor when viewing his stats. But Hafey's production compares quite favorably to the other great hitters from his era.

Without getting into a lot of advanced metrics, one of my favorite statistics is OPS, or on base plus slugging. OPS, of course, combines slugging average, the metric for power, and on base percentage, which measures the frequency with which a player got on base via a hit, a walk, or being hit by the pitcher. The truly great hitters of the game bring power, as well as the ability to get on base.

Let's look at the players from Hafey's era with the best OPS figures. For my analysis, batters will be required to have at least 3,000 at bats between the years 1924 and 1937.

114 hitters registered in excess of 3,000 at bats during the course of Hafey's career. Chick Hafey had the 18th highest OPS over this period. When you consider that several of the players ahead of him on this list are immortals of the games, namely Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, and Mel Ott, in addition to other Hall of Fame superstars including Al Simmons, Chuck Klein, Harry Heilmann and Hack Wilson, Hafey's .898 OPS total is pretty impressive.

http://imageshack.com/a/img836/8497/cl71.png

Hafey's OPS beat out fellow Hall of Famers Mickey Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Bill Dickey, Kiki Cuyler, Tony Lazzeri, Joe Cronin, Earle Combs, Luke Appling, Frankie Frisch, Pie Traynor and Billy Herman, among others.

Hafey was plagued by vision problems throughout his career, resulting from multiple beanings, and sinus problems. He was the first star to ever wear glasses, and one of only two Hall of Famers to wear them (Reggie Jackson being the other). He missed half the 1932 season because of a sinus infection. The sinus problems became chronic, and though he played more games in 1933 and 1934 than he ever had before, they affected his hitting. He left his team before the end of the '34 season to have corrective surgery. His career, for all intents and purposes, was done after the '34 season--at age 31. He did play 15 games in 1935, but was stricken with influenza. He decided to retire. He attempted a comeback in 1937, but his eyesight was so bad he could not hit, and had no power. He was no longer the player who set a Major League record with ten straight hits, who hit for the cycle, or even who won the National League batting title in 1931.

If you consider Hafey's career before 1932 when his illnesses robbed him of his hitting abilities, his OPS was .948. Consider his performance against his peers between 1924 and 1931. During that period, he had the 9th best OPS of all Major League hitters with over 2,500 at bats.

http://imageshack.com/a/img838/7500/zjms.png

If you consider Hafey's 5 year peak, which took place from 1927 to 1931, Hafey's OPS was 4 points lower than Hack Wilson's, and 5 points lower than Jimmie Foxx's.

http://imageshack.com/a/img835/7128/jkem.png

Author Lawrence Ritter and baseball historian Donald Honig included Hafey In their 1981 book The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All-Time. They cited what they called "the Smoky Joe Wood Syndrome," where a player of truly exceptional talent might rank with the all-time greats on merit, despite a career sharply curtailed by injury. It's no secret that Hafey was described as a great hitter by his peers. He also had a legendary throwing arm, with arm strength and accuracy that has been compared to that of Roberto Clemente.

So, do I think Chick Hafey was a no brainer for the Hall? No. But he was a truly great player who had his career hampered, and shortened, by injury. I certainly do not feel his inclusion should be questioned.

I'll leave you all with one more thing. Chick Hafey has the 54th highest slugging percentage of all-time at .526. Here's a list of some of the players with a career slugging percentage below Chick Hafey's:

Shoeless Joe Jackson
Willie McCovey
Ty Cobb
Eddie Mathews
Harmon Killebrew
Bill Terry
Joe Medwyck
Jim Rice
Tris Speaker
Roy Campanella
Ernie Banks
Orlando Cepeda
Ted Kluszewski
Reggie Jackson
Rocky Colavito
Norm Cash
George Brett
Bill Dickey
Joe Adcock
Fred Lynn
Yogi Berra
Charlie Gehringer
Al Kaline
Mickey Cochrane
Tony Oliva
Roger Maris
Eddie Murray
Johnny Bench
Roberto Clemente
Dave Winfield
Jackie Robinson
Paul Waner
Joe Cronin
Tony Lazzeri
Honus Wagner
Napolean Lajoie
Carl Yastrzemski
Ken Boyer

[howard38]

I don't think anyone disputes that Hafey was an outstanding hitter and even a likely hall of famer if he had been injury free and had better vision. But his peak was only five years and in those years he never even reached 140 games in a season nor were his stats mind boggling a la Koufax. Baseball history is littered w/hitters in Hafey's class that, for one reason or another, had short careers or career peaks. If all of them were inducted it would make for a mighty crowded hall. If you're a big hall of fame guy that's fine but as it stands now I personally don't see that he belongs.

[the 'stache]

First, Koufax rates very high in two of four categories, Black Ink and Hall of Fame monitor. And even on the two he doesn't rate so high he is way ahead of Hafey, who is just miserable in all four.

That's not the point, really. The point is the four metrics you site are unreliable. They're nice to give the reader a very rough quick check on a player's career as compared to other players. But they're hardly definitive. Two of the metric say "based on our formulas, you're not even an average Hall of Famer, Mr. Koufax". Yes, that is an accurate statement. Plus, I can blow apart each of the four metrics, quite easily. For example, the Black Ink Test measures how many times a player leads their league in one of the important categories. What a joke. So, if Cecil Cooper were a Hall of Fame-worthy player (he's borderline at best, and I don't expect he'll ever be voted in by the Veteran's Committee), the Black Ink Test would basically look at his .352 batting average in 1980 and deem it worthless for their "metric", because George Brett batted .390. And his 219 hits, too, would be worthless because Willie Wilson had 230 hits. But it doesn't take into consideration the disparity in at bats. Cooper had 622. Willie Wilson had 705 at bats, the second highest single season total in history. But Wilson's black list score still goes up, and Cooper's doesn't, even though Cooper had a much higher batting average (.352 to .328).


Second,as you say, Koufax's peak years were SO exceptional that he deserves a little leeway;We can't say the same for Hafey.

Sure we can. In fact, I just did, in my last post. Again, I'm not going to use the career WAR, and peak WAR metrics at all. Why? How the hell do you accurately calculate it for games played 80 years ago? There's no spray charts. There's no way to calculate fielding range, etc. That Hafey, one of the better defensive left fielders of his time has negative dWAR each year during his peak, is laughable. I guess the statisticians figured his eyes were too poor to see balls hit to the outfield, completely ignoring that he was a career .317 hitter.

But anyway, in his 5 year peak, his OPS was nearly identical to that of Jimmie Foxx's. Granted, Foxx had not yet hit his prime, but for that period, Foxx was averaging .327, 31 HR and 129 RBI per 162 games.

Again, I am not making the argument that Hafey is a shoo in. If he were being considered, I am not sure he gets in. Probably not. But I don't have a problem with his being elected. I do think he was worthy of the honor.

By the way, I don't know if Koufax in his prime was the best pitcher to ever play the game. He's in my top five, though.

[the 'stache]

I don't think anyone disputes that Hafey was an outstanding hitter and even a likely hall of famer if he had been injury free and had better vision. But his peak was only five years and in those years he never even reached 140 games in a season nor were his stats mind boggling a la Koufax. Baseball history is littered w/hitters in Hafey's class that, for one reason or another, had short careers or career peaks. If all of them were inducted it would make for a mighty crowded hall. If you're a big hall of fame guy that's fine but as it stands now I personally don't see that he belongs.

I guess I'm looking at it a little differently. Again, I don't think he'd be elected if he were being considered today. But I don't have a problem with his being in, and in the context of his era, even though he only played in about 1,300 games, I feel he was worthy. He's certainly one of the lower tier Hall of Famers, but that's like saying "such and such was one of the least attractive Playmates of the Year".

One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The metrics are the product of extensive research and analysis and thought. The reason they use four is for the precise reason you mention -- any one alone has its biases and therefore its flaws. So your argument about Cecil Cooper is a straw man. Taken as a whole, the metrics are pretty meaningful. Just look at the rankings they generate -- there are perhaps some aberrations on any given metric, but not that many. And Chick Hafey is not even in the discussion on any one of the four metrics. He had a few good years. So did all sorts of people who are not Hall worthy.

it bears repeating.

Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS

[pclpads]

The question could be posed at a number of HOFer's such as Sutter, Ozzie Smith, Rizzuto, Maz and a personal favorite, Rabbit Maranville. I presume career longevity was a consideration in his case. 23 years, but must have the lowest BA of any HOFer: .258. And so it goes . . .

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another interesting Baseball Reference feature is most comparable players. Let's use "by age" rather than "by career" for Hafey because his career was cut short. And we have:

Most Similar by Ages

23.Todd Hollandsworth (974) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24.Carlos Lee (972) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25.Bob Meusel (964) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26.Bob Meusel (944) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27.Babe Herman (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28.Babe Herman (945) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29.Matt Holliday (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30.Matt Holliday (941) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31.Bob Meusel (937) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32.Tony Oliva (934) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34.Tony Oliva (924) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Not exactly overwhelming.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up. "

That is a circular argument because it applies by definition to anyone who was voted in by a Veterans Committee composed of peers. So are you saying let's just take their word for it, and exclude the possibility of cronyism which is at least as logical an explanation?

[the 'stache]

The metrics are the product of extensive research and analysis and thought. The reason they use four is for the precise reason you mention -- any one alone has its biases and therefore its flaws. So your argument about Cecil Cooper is a straw man. Taken as a whole, the metrics are pretty meaningful. Just look at the rankings they generate -- there are perhaps some aberrations on any given metric, but not that many. And Chick Hafey is not even in the discussion on any one of the four metrics. He had a few good years. So did all sorts of people who are not Hall worthy.

it bears repeating.

Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS


Ok, I'll use Joe Jackson to show how absurd the Black Ink metric is. And if I can chop down one leg of the chair with little to no effort, imagine how easily it will topple over when I look at the the other three.

How many batting titles did Jackson win? Zero. Why? Because Ty Cobb was winning almost every single batting title. Jackson hit .408 one season, and didn't win the batting title. So, even though Jackson has the third highest batting average in baseball history, he didn't get a single point from his batting average. Yet if Cobb had broken his leg as a rookie, and never played again, Jackson, for the exact same performance, would have realized a huge boost. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing he wins at least four batting titles. That gives him 16 points of the 27 he needs to become an average Hall of Famer.

By the way, I understand why there are four metrics grouped together. I did a lot of statistical analysis in college. But nothing you have shown me makes that Black Ink Test any less absurd.

I have a question for you, since you keep throwing these out. All four are providing Average Hall of Famer scores. How long is the Average Hall of Fame career? Would it not follow that a Hall of Famer that's played 20 seasons, and has some 12,000 plate appearances would have a better score than somebody who played the equivalent of 8.5 seasons like Hafey? It follows that somebody who has played more than twice as long is going to have more opportunity to score near the top of the league leaders.

By the way, each time you dismiss Hafey's numbers as compiled by these tests, I can't help but shake my head a little, Peter. You say he's not close on any of them:

Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

In a little over 8 years of playing, he's managed to reach nearly 70% of the score required to be an "average Hall of Famer" per the Hall of Fame Monitor Batting Test. He's 66% of the way there on the Hall of Fame Standards Batting Test. He's a way off on the Gray Ink Batting Test, but more seasons hitting .330, and finishing in the top five in slugging like he did every year of his five year peak, will boost that number. And I've already told you what I think of the Black Ink Batting Test--it's useless.

He would only need a few more seasons to reach these metrics.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The JAWS stat takes into account both peak years and career, equally weighted, so it is a very favorable metric to a guy like Hafey who had a short career. The result? 57th best left fielder of all time. And if we use WAR7 alone he moves all the way up to 54th. Oh wait you don't like WAR. I guess you know best, Bill. Perhaps you should write a book and Bill James and the SABRmetricians can move over.

[D. Bergin]

Another interesting Baseball Reference feature is most comparable players. Let's use "by age" rather than "by career" for Hafey because his career was cut short. And we have:

Most Similar by Ages

23.Todd Hollandsworth (974) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24.Carlos Lee (972) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25.Bob Meusel (964) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26.Bob Meusel (944) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27.Babe Herman (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28.Babe Herman (945) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29.Matt Holliday (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30.Matt Holliday (941) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31.Bob Meusel (937) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32.Tony Oliva (934) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34.Tony Oliva (924) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Not exactly overwhelming.


Maybe not overwhelming, but it's not exactly horrible company to be in. Tony Oliva certainly had his share of voters who thought was HOF worthy, during his time of eligibility.

Babe Herman (despite being surrounded by horrible line-ups), hard to find many 20th Century batters with a comparable lifetime batting average NOT in the HOF. (Riggs Stephenson, who was essentially a part-timer outside of a few seasons, is all I noticed).

Obviously, some players deserve it more then others, but I don't like begrudging a man the honor, once he does make it in. I don't see the HOF as having to be some sort of ultra-exclusive club. It's a museum to celebrate the sport........not just the Babe Ruths and Willie Mays of the world.

[the 'stache]

"One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up. "

That is a circular argument because it applies by definition to anyone who was voted in by a Veterans Committee composed of peers. So are you saying let's just take their word for it, and exclude the possibility of cronyism which is at least as logical an explanation?

Oh, I think Cronyism played a part in his election. There's no doubt about it. But I don't think it's a circular argument. I don't believe every single player voted in by the Veteran's Committee was held at the level Hafey was. Branch Rickey said if he'd been healthy, he could have been the greatest right handed hitter the game's ever seen. I bet if you searched the net for quotes about the other 20 or so players inducted by the veteran's Committee, you wouldn't see that same statement made about any of the others.

What is said about a player's peers has to weigh into the discussion. Factors beyond a player's statistics has to be considered.

Imagine if the only thing that was considered about Jackie Robinson was his final numbers. Jackie was a career .311 hitter with an .883 OPS. He had 4,877 career at bats. He won one batting title. He lead the league in OBP once, and in stolen bases twice.

But what about the Tests? Jackie has a much better Hall of Fame Monitor Test score, 98 to 69. But should there be this difference? Robinson won an MVP, Hafey did not. That's 8 points for Jackie. Robinson got 3 points for each of the six All Star selections he got. Hafey got the first hit in the first All Star Game, but he only played in that one game. Why? Because that was the first time the game had ever been played. It's not that Robinson was that much better a player. Context. Robinson gets 18 points and Hafey gets 3, simply because of the eras they played in. The All Star game only existed at the end of Hafey's career. Then, again, Robinson won the MVP the year he won the batting title. But Hafey, the year he won his batting title, hit for a higher average. He had a higher OPS. He had a higher OPS+. But there was no national surge of emotion supporting Hafey.

Basically, there's 23 points of the difference between Robinson and Hafey. One player winning an MVP where the other does not. And one player being elected to six All Star Games whereas the other player didn't have a chance to go to the All Star Game in his prime...simply because it did not exist. Oh, and one more point for Robinson winning the Rookie of the Year Award in the award's first year. The award did not exist in 1924, when Hafey was a rookie.

Should Robinson really have a higher Hall of Fame Monitor Test score? No, of course not.

Context.

But you wouldn't take anything but the flat numbers into consideration. Jackie Robinson was an incredible, exciting player, and he broke the color barrier that had existed since the late 1800s.

But if numbers are all that matter, then Jackie Robinson shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, either. Even though he had 252 more career at bats than Hafey, Hafey had more doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, a higher batting average, slugging percentage, OPS, and OPS +. Robinson had more runs scored, more hits, more stolen bases, and a higher OBP.

And while Jackie Robinson had to deal with hatred everywhere he went, he never had to battle vision problems. But, neither of those things matter. We shouldn't listen to the stories about Jack Robinson getting death threats. People repeatedly yelling the N word at him from the stands, those stories told by his teammates, should have no bearing whatsoever.

It's the numbers only. And if Chick Hafey doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, then Jackie Robinson doesn't belong, either.

[packs]

I don't think the Jackie Robinson comparison is relevant. What he did for baseball and America is unmatched by any other single event that has ever occurred on a baseball field.

The Hall of Fame is for great players. It is a recent development that you have to have certain numbers to get in.

[the 'stache]

The JAWS stat takes into account both peak years and career, equally weighted, so it is a very favorable metric to a guy like Hafey who had a short career. The result? 57th best left fielder of all time. And if we use WAR7 alone he moves all the way up to 54th. Oh wait you don't like WAR. I guess you know best, Bill. Perhaps you should write a book and Bill James and the SABRmetricians can move over.

It's not that I dislike WAR at all. Firstly, there's no universal formula for it. Secondly, applying WAR to players that were in the Majors 80 years ago is an exercise in futility. Chick Hafey stole 70 bases in his career. There's no record how many times he was caught. What is that? An incomplete statistic.

How are they calculating something like defensive war? How do they determine range factor, or ultimate zone rating? They don't have any spray charts telling them where hitters made their hits and outs. What does all this mean? That the statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.

[howard38]

Jackie Robinson didn't need any surge of emotion to win the MVP in 1949. He was arguably the best player in the NL in 1949 w/his only competition coming from Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner (he beat them both in WAR) and his team won the pennant. That is the very definition of an MVP.

[the 'stache]

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

[D. Bergin]

It's not that I dislike WAR at all. Firstly, there's no universal formula for it. Secondly, applying WAR to players that were in the Majors 80 years ago is an exercise in futility. Chick Hafey stole 70 bases in his career. There's no record how many times he was caught. What is that? An incomplete statistic.

How are they calculating something like defensive war? How do they determine range factor, or ultimate zone rating? They don't have any spray charts telling them where hitters made their hits and outs. What does all this mean? That the statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.


I'll straight up go ahead and say, even fairly modern defensive WAR stats are a joke and completely arbitrary.

As a Yankee fan, watching the difference on the entire attitude of the infield defense, when Don Mattingly was playing first base and Jason Giambi playing first base, was like comparing Brooks Robinson to Butch Hobson at 3rd base.

Yet, defensive WAR statistics on Baseball Reference seem to indicate they are fairly similar to each other on the field, and that Mattingly was actually a negative factor as a fielder, despite also being ranked at or near the top in range factor and every other defensive category as a 1st baseman, throughout his career. :confused:

[Peter_Spaeth]

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

Yeah these are always interesting debates, absolutely. And of course I am being a bit of a statistical purist just for the hell of it too. Certainly there are intangibles as well -- I just don't think Hafey has them. :D

[Harliduck]

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

Hey...I want to thank you for BEING contrarian...it's creating great dialogue and you ALMOST have me convinced he belongs. Given the statistical arguments you have made there is at minimum a justification. I like the comment that no one wants to begrudge a man his honor once he gets in, I certainly agree with that, it still bothers me though that there are quite a few players throughout the years with similar or better careers that will never be considered (and most shouldn't). The cronyism, good ole' boy situation that got him in stinks.


I do like the comment I received in a PM..."throw a Yankee uniform on him and your thread doesn't exist..."

[the 'stache]

Jackie Robinson didn't need any surge of emotion to win the MVP in 1949. He was arguably the best player in the NL in 1949 w/his only competition coming from Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner (he beat them both in WAR) and his team won the pennant. That is the very definition of an MVP.

Kiner hit .310 with 54 home runs and 127 RBI. He also walked 117 times, had a .658 SLG, a 1.089 OPS, and an OPS + of 186. He led the NL in HR, RBI, walks, SLG, OPS, OPS +.

Robinson led the NL in batting at .342 and in stolen bases with 37. He only scored 6 more runs than Kiner.

Musial hit .338 with 36 home runs and 123 RBI. He led the NL with 207 hits, 41 doubles, 13 triples, a .438 OBP and 382 total bases. He scored 128 runs, more than Robinson.

Robinson was the best player in the National League? Not in my opinion.

The Dodgers had Campanella, Hodges, Snider and Furillo, and the Dodgers won the pennant. That's why Robinson won the MVP.

I challenge you to name a single player on the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1949 besides Kiner without looking. That's why he finished fourth in the MVP vote.

Same thing with the Cardinals. Name another player on the Cardinals in 1949. You might get a lucky guess. I will tell you this. After Musial's 36 home runs, the second highest home run total on the team was 13.

What's my point? Musial and Kiner carried their teams. Robinson didn't have to.

[Harliduck]

The question could be posed at a number of HOFer's such as Sutter, Ozzie Smith, Rizzuto, Maz and a personal favorite, Rabbit Maranville. I presume career longevity was a consideration in his case. 23 years, but must have the lowest BA of any HOFer: .258. And so it goes . . .

I think the context of some you mentioned is by "position". When you take an Ozzie or a Sandberg, you have to compare them to other SS & 2nd's, wouldn't you agree? Rizzuto, Reese, ect...fall into that. Had Chafey put up those numbers as say a 2nd baseman, a position historically that didn't see a lot of offense, I would think it would be a no brainer.

As for Sutter...I don't get it. To me he rode the wave of giving closers a new found respect. His years of "dominance" were few and the man had a career LOSING record. (68-71). All the Sabr metrics and analysis will never add up to putting a man in the Hall with a lifetime losing record, and I don't care that he was a closer.

[the 'stache]

I'll straight up go ahead and say, even fairly modern defensive WAR stats are a joke and completely arbitrary.

As a Yankee fan, watching the difference on the entire attitude of the infield defense, when Don Mattingly was playing first base and Jason Giambi playing first base, was like comparing Brooks Robinson to Butch Hobson at 3rd base.

Yet, defensive WAR statistics on Baseball Reference seem to indicate they are fairly similar to each other on the field, and that Mattingly was actually a negative factor as a fielder, despite also being ranked at or near the top in range factor and every other defensive category as a 1st baseman, throughout his career. :confused:

Yeah, Dave. I think that's pretty absurd. If I were looking for a "total package" first baseman in the last thirty years, I'd have a hard time choosing between Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly. They're certainly the best two defensive first baseman in my lifetime.

Mattingly is a lot like Hafey. While I think Don's highs were a little higher, his career, too, got curtailed by injury. In much the same way illness and poor vision robbed Hafey of his power (he still remained a .300 hitter, though), Mattingly's back robbed him of his power.

I will go to my grave saying that Don Mattingly is one of the best pure hitters I've ever seen. He was Tony Gwynn with power. He and Boggs tussled for a while, but with Boggs, I always felt like he had to work harder. He's a great hitter, but there was always something about Don's swing that was just beautiful. He coiled up like a snake, bent down and forward just a little over the plate, then just exploded.

[the 'stache]

I do like the comment I received in a PM..."throw a Yankee uniform on him and your thread doesn't exist..."

To that I have to reply "Don Mattingly says hi". Oh, "and Bernie Williams is on line two." :p

[howard38]

Kiner hit .310 with 54 home runs and 127 RBI. He also walked 117 times, had a .658 SLG, a 1.089 OPS, and an OPS + of 186. He led the NL in HR, RBI, walks, SLG, OPS, OPS +.

Robinson led the NL in batting at .342 and in stolen bases with 37. He only scored 6 more runs than Kiner.

Musial hit .338 with 36 home runs and 123 RBI. He led the NL with 207 hits, 41 doubles, 13 triples, a .438 OBP and 382 total bases. He scored 128 runs, more than Robinson.

Robinson was the best player in the National League? Not in my opinion.

The Dodgers had Campanella, Hodges, Snider and Furillo, and the Dodgers won the pennant. That's why Robinson won the MVP.

I challenge you to name a single player on the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1949 besides Kiner without looking. That's why he finished fourth in the MVP vote.

Same thing with the Cardinals. Name another player on the Cardinals in 1949. You might get a lucky guess. I will tell you this. After Musial's 36 home runs, the second highest home run total on the team was 13.

What's my point? Musial and Kiner carried their teams. Robinson didn't have to.
I will grant you that had Musial had teammates as good as Robinson's the Cards would have won the pennant and Musial probably would have been the MVP. I'm not arguing that Robinson was necessarily better that year just that there is a defendable case that he was. Robinson was a better baserunner and more valuable fielder than Musial and much better in both cases than Kiner and there are sabermetric stats that support him being the best in the league in 1949. The fact of the matter is that Robinson was the best player on a team that won the pennant by a single game and as such he did not need a "surge of emotion" to win the MVP award.

I too am enjoying the debate. Keep 'em coming.

Btw, w/o checking I knew that Musial's teammates were not bad. Two of the other seven starting position players were hall of famers in their prime, Enos Slaughter and Al Schoendienst.

[Harliduck]

To that I have to reply "Don Mattingly says hi". Oh, "and Bernie Williams is on line two." :p

I do believe Mattingly will get in eventually...not so sure about Williams. Don Mattingly to me is the epitome of player the Veterans Committee should be protecting.

[Exhibitman]

I've always looked at it as the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics. I value peak performance more than longevity: Koufax over Sutton. If a player was among the very best in the game for several seasons and is otherwise eligible I am OK with his enshrinement. Judged on what he did [not what might have been] as recounted in that SABR article, Hafey isn't a top-flight HOFer but he isn't a Harry Hooper punchline either.

Tony Oliva would have been a HOFer with a few more elite level seasons but he was effectively finished by age 32. I think for him "what could have been" has actually damaged his chances at the hall because so many HOF electors saw how great he was before he tore up his knees. Mattingly too; he has two careers, before and after back injuries, that are so markedly different that it might as well be two different players. That had to have affected the voters.

[Bosox Blair]

...but he isn't a Harry Hooper punchline either.



It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and deserving HOFer. I'll copy what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#79 all time), averaging 100 per season over his entire career,
- Top 100 all time in career base hits,
- #39 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per season,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong.

Cheers,
Blair

[frankbmd]

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and deserving HOFer. I'll copy what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#79 all time), averaging 100 per season over his entire career,
- Top 100 all time in career base hits,
- #39 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per season,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong.

Cheers,
Blair

Blair, you make some good points, but .......................

I think the naysayers would argue that Hooper's black mark is the fact
that he wasn't signed by the Yankees after his career in Fenway like Damon and Ellsbury.
And wasn't there a lad named Ruth or something like that.

Hooper went to the White (or Black) Sox in 1921.:eek:

Shouldn't every HOFer be good enough to play in New York?;)

[bbcard1]

There are a lot of guys who had two or three great years or who had their careers cut short for one reason or another but putting them in the HOF because of it just isn't right.

David

David, I kind of disagree with you here. I think the Hall of Fame that honors Chick Hafey and Rabbit Maranville should also honor Tony Oliva, Roger Maris, Bill Freehan and Thuman Munson. This is a place for lovers of the game and real fans and while one could easily argue that it is not what the hall of fame set out to be, it is what it has become and it is unfair to the families to go our and extract the Elmer Flicks.

I think there should be a second "inner circle" which would be honored in some other way...gold plaques maybe...it is comprised of players who one must know to meet minimum functional baseball literacy standards. It would start with an induction class of 11...one of each position player, one right handed pitcher, one left handed pitcher and one at large (manager, relief pitcher, another extra player). After the initial induction one player will be added to the class each year. My suspicion would be someone along the lines of Ernie Banks would be the minimum standard to ever receive consideration.