Why is Joe Tinker in the HOF [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

12-03-2005, 06:20 PM

Posted By: HolsteinI agree - I can't understand why he is in there, based on his stats. However, he was on a great team and was part of a popular infield. It absolutely makes no sense when you consider some overlooked players with great statistics. Why isn't his teammate, Ed Reulbach in the hall? Maybe he just wasn't as popular (ie, one of the first college guys). Paul

Archive

12-03-2005, 06:24 PM

Posted By: Sean CoeHe was a very good shortstop, who received great publicity. Also I believe he was part of the flood of veterans voted in in the early 1940's which included several questionable choices.

Archive

12-03-2005, 06:39 PM

Posted By: Andrew ParksHe was the defensive backbone of arguably the greatest baseball franchise in baseball history. Those Cubs hold the records for wins in a season, wins in successive seasons, wins in three straight seasons, and every other number of straight seasons up to eight or nine I believe. Bill James wrote that in one of his books and I wish I could remember where the streak exactly stops. The Cubs' popularity and dynasty was enough to give the voters a reason to put quite a few guys off those teams in the Hall: Chance, Evers, Tinker, and Brown. Then there was that poem called "Baseball's Saddest Lexicon" (Tinker to Evers to Chance). Also what other Shortstops were there through the 40's to put in? I would think those were the reasons.

Archive

12-03-2005, 06:44 PM

Posted By: cmokingSounds like Tinker got in the Hall the same exact way that Rizzuto got in.

Archive

12-03-2005, 06:59 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdWhat other shortstops were there? I can think of some besides Maranville and Wagner who were already in. How about Jack Glasscock,Ed McKean,Herman Long,Bill Dahlen,Tommy Corcoran? I would put all of them in ahead of Tinker along with the afore mentioned Reulbach and the 3rd baseman of that infield who is forgotten because he wasnt in the poem,Harry Steinfeldt.He was just as important as any of the other 3

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:06 PM

Posted By: AnsonOzzie Smith had better numbers but also got in based on defense. Sometimes name recognition or team popularity can make all the difference.

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:22 PM

Posted By: Frank EvanovHas to be "name recognition". Don't forget the 3 of them were all elected in the same year...1946. If it was just "Evers to Chance", Joe would not be in The Hall. Frank

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:23 PM

Posted By: JimiI saw on a pregame show to the Cleveland Indians game back in September, that the only reason that Evers, Tinker, and Chance made the HOF was because of that famous poem and their popularity in Chicago. They talked about their poor numbers, too. I would guess that it is safe to say that Omar Vizquel should be in the HOF then....hands down! Jimi

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:33 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaAnd the worst part is that they weren't even close to being the best double play combination in baseball.

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:37 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethThese are the saddest of possible words: "Tinker to Evers to Chance." Trio of bear cubs, and fleeter than birds, Tinker and Evers and Chance. Ruthlessly pricking our gonfalon bubble, Making a Giant hit into a double- Words that are heavy with nothing but trouble: "Tinker to Evers to Chance."

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:55 PM

Posted By: john/z28jdNot to change the subject but i actually think Vizquel will make the hall of fame mostly based on defensive numbers and where he will be all-time when he retires among shortstops.Besides the 10 gold gloves,he ranks 4th all-time in both games played and double plays turned and 1st all-time in fielding %. By the time he retires which will probably be after 2 more seasons he will be at or very near the top in both games played(currently 315 behind the leader) and double plays(111 behind the leader) and hes got the all-time % record sealed up(he would have to be by far the worst in the league for those 2 years to lose that lead. Add in 2500 hits,1300 runs and constantly being rated by managers and coaches as one of the smartest base runners,best bunters and best hit and run men.....he will probably be a 2nd ballot hall of famer when people look back A little known fact about him is that hes 3rd among guys who have played at least 1 game after 1950 in sarifice bunts,but ranks just 78th all-time.Hes 9 behind Ozzie Smith and 3 behind Nellie Fox among post-50 players and has had 20 each of the last 2 seasons.Really tells you how much different the game is from back then. Ok back to the Tinkering with Joe's HOF credentials

Archive

12-03-2005, 07:55 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackI think armchair baseball historians rely too much on batting statistics, or are unable to imagine that anything exists beyond batting statistics. Albert Belle had clearly better hitting statistics than Ozzie Smith, but I'd take Smith over Belle for my team any day. The intagibles (leadership, good teammate, fielding aspects, running hard to first base, etc) may dissapear from view over time, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. A player's teammates, managers and contemoraries will have more insight into the non statistical aspects of a player, which is I give much weight to what the player's contemporaries thought. Those who say Ozzie Smith should not be in the Hall of Fame because his slugging percentage is nothing like Mark McGwire's (and it isn't) are examples of folks who can type in baseball-reference.com but are otherwise clueless about the game ... Dan Marino was a mighty fine quarterback and put up some awesome numbers, but if your football dream team was made up of 22 cloned Dan Marinos you'd be blown out of every game you played. After the first half of the first game, you'd be begging for the local junior high player to replace Marino at cornerback ... Simularly, there was a reason Ozzie Smith played at shortstop and McGwire at first. And it had nothing to do with their home run totals.

Archive

12-03-2005, 08:17 PM

Posted By: Greg EcklundDavid has a good point - from what I have read, Tinker was noted for being an exceptional hitter in the clutch and was well known for being the batter that Matty had the most trouble with.

Archive

12-03-2005, 08:25 PM

Posted By: AnsonThere's some truth to that. Look at Brooks Robinson (one of my faves). His offensive numbers are decent but not earth-shattering. But, he's still arguably the best defensive third-sacker ever (with due respect to Scott Rolen). I still don't feel that Tinker's defense is in the same league as many other players of the time. I have no problem with Ozzie, Omar, or Brooks. But, Tinker is a strecth.

Archive

12-03-2005, 08:28 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaPat Tabler was unbelievable in the clutch. Pete O'Brien used to kill Roger Clemens, and he was arguably in the top three defensive first basemen in the 1980's....That doesn't make either of them Hall of Famers. Joe Tinker is in the Hall because of that poem.

Archive

12-03-2005, 08:34 PM

Posted By: AnsonNot to steer us too O/T, but I would put Schmidt ahead of O'Brien for the 80's.

Archive

12-03-2005, 09:20 PM

Posted By: JimiAs a loyal Indians fan my entire life, it's great to see the nice comments about Omar Vizquel. For years, I had to listen to ESPN talk about Jeter and AROD at shortstop, and how great they were (Tejada included)....not that Omar didn't get some respect, but still.....I always thought it was crappy that they were making the All-Star teams and he wasn't. I believe, though, that Torre one year chose all 4 SS's to the AS Game? Anyway, he's a HOFer in my book! Oh....Pat Tabler and Pete O'Brien (more Tribe respect!!!!.....thanks guys, you made my evening a good one!) <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Jimi

Archive

12-03-2005, 10:18 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaI should have stated one of the three best in the AL. Probably behind Mattingly and Hrbek. Even though I would argue that Schmidt only played 155 games at first base in the 1980's so it's not really a good comparison. However I believe that Schmidt at third base was the best defensively maybe of all time. Certainly of the decade of the eighties.

Archive

12-03-2005, 10:59 PM

Posted By: tbobHe was the Ozzie Smith of his day and a deadly clutch hitter to boot. The real test is how he was viewed by his peers. Tinker was highly regarded as one of the best, if not the best, shortstop in the game DURING THE TIME HE PLAYED. Not just defensively, but all-around. Check out this stat: In the first 4 years of his career, Tinker played in 545 games, had 1989 at bats AND 0 STRIKEOUTS. He also had 126 steals AND WAS THROWN OUT 0 TIMES. Something to definitely think about... Johnny Evers and Frank Chance deserve to be in the Hall also, and not just because of that damn poem. Now if you want to talk Cubbies who don't belong in the Hall, start with Billy Williams. If you want to talk about players of that era who don't belong, start with Rube Marquard.

Archive

12-03-2005, 11:15 PM

Posted By: MyBuddy........... and look up "gonfalon" in your dictionary ... and you'll be a better person .............

Archive

12-03-2005, 11:19 PM

Posted By: AnonymousWell guys, you have to think of the player. Averages dont make a great player fielding can. he played in quite a hard league at the time. wagner, cobb, jackson, matty, johnson, willis, alexander, etc etc. like for the time, his stats could have been vary good. i;m not trying to defend him, but look at alot of the stats for a third basemen, not alot of them had higher avg. or fielding %then him. also it helped him to get in was the famous fraz "tinker to evers to chance". by todays standards he shouldnt be in......

Archive

12-04-2005, 03:32 AM

Posted By: Andrew ParksBob, The reason Tinker had 0 K's and 0 CS's in those years is because they didn't keep accurate stats of those so they don't include them then. I am not sure if your post was tongue in cheek or not by there you have it.

Archive

12-04-2005, 04:53 AM

Posted By: Kevin CummingsAccording to several sources I've read, Tinker was an exceptional shortstop for his time. He led National League shortstops in fielding percentage in 1906, 1908, 1909 and 1911. He was also supposedly the best hit and run man of his time. He was not a great hitter, but he owned Matty and had lots of key hits in the 1908 charge to the World Series and even homered in one of the WS games. Finally, he was instrumental in the historical context of the game since he was the first name player signed by the upstart Federal League leading to other named players coming on board. That having been said, he was a crummy teammate (he and Evers didn't speak for years), got into fights with fans, and is the shortstop who meets the fewest Hall of Fame statistical standards (Bill James has him ranked as only the 33rd best shortstop ever to play the game, behind non-HOF players like Alan Trammel, Maury Wills, Bill Dahlen and Cecil Travis among others). So, I guess the short answer is one more screwup by the Veterans Committee.

Archive

12-04-2005, 06:46 AM

Posted By: paul depodestanow where do I file for unemployment?

Archive

12-04-2005, 10:23 AM

Posted By: pete ullmani agree that tinker should NOT be in the hof...but on a different note...why are eddie collins cards so undervalued? All those .300 seasons, stolen bases...he's certainly worth 1.5-2x a common?!?!?! dontcha think?

Archive

12-04-2005, 10:50 AM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaRegarding Eddie Collins I don't understand why he is so undervalued and unappreciated either. He has the stats, he has the championships, and he was very popular in his era. Imagine what his cards would be "worth" if he had been a part of the scheme to throw the 1919 series.

Archive

12-04-2005, 10:52 AM

Posted By: PaulI thought Joe Sewell held the record for fewest strikeouts in a season with 3 (with at least 100 games or 400 at bats or some other reasonable minimum). So it seems unlikely that Tinker went four years without striking out.

Archive

12-04-2005, 11:06 AM

Posted By: davidcyclebackMy theory on a Hall of Fame is that you have to be able to make a good on the field team from the members. And if you can't field a good team from the members, it ain't much of a Hall of Fame. This is why you need an Ozzie Smith and a Dennis Eckersley in the Hall. If the Hall was made up of all Mickey Mantles, you couldn't field a winning team ... If a baseball fan says there should be four Mickey Mantle-types for every one Ozzie Smith-type in the Hall, I won't argue. But you still need a great fielding shortstop to field a great team. Similarly, a football fan might argue that a place kicker doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. However, if you need a good place kicker to field a great football team for this NFL season, my opinion is there has to be a kicker in the Hall of Fame.

Archive

12-04-2005, 11:23 AM

Posted By: AnsonI always enjoy comparing Eddie Collins', Tris Speaker's, and Honus Wagner's stats and try to figure out why there's such a HUGE gap in value between the three.

Archive

12-04-2005, 11:42 AM

Posted By: tbobAndrew- I think you meant your reply to be to me, not Leon. You might be right on the CS statistic but I think you are wrong on the strikeouts not being kept. The walks were kept accurately, why not strikeouts? On the subject of Johnny "The Crab" Evers and Tinker not talking, from what I have read no one much liked Evers, not just Tinker. All acoounts I have seen show Tinker was otherwise a friendly and good teammate, he just hated Evers. As far as Evers being in the Hall of Fame, even a manic depressive deserves to be in the Hall when he posts Evers numbers, the fact he was regarded as probably the smartest ballplayer of his time, and the fact as player coach in 1914 he led the Miracle Boston Braves to the World Series title, probably one of, if not THE, greatest sports feat of all time. TBob

Archive

12-04-2005, 12:43 PM

Posted By: Darren J. DuetHall of FAME.

Archive

12-04-2005, 02:11 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaIf it's the Hall of FAME then why isn't Roger Maris in?

Archive

12-04-2005, 02:17 PM

Posted By: Daniel BrettaBob, strikeouts were not kept before the 1910 season. Tinker struck out about an average of 20-35 times per season. And you have to give credit to George Stallings for leading the Miracle Braves to the title.

Archive

12-04-2005, 02:38 PM

Posted By: Darren J. DuetGood question. But it is the Hall of FAME. I believe voters often get too caught up in career stats rather than popularity and contribution to the game---not always, but often. JMHO. Tinker, Evers, Chance are as historical as it gets, ditto for Maris's 61.

Archive

12-04-2005, 03:00 PM

Posted By: AnsonBut, if you're going to base the Hall of Fame off of a season's single accomplishment or feat, if would be made up of tons of mediocre players. You can romanticize a player, legend, etc.. but it doesn't change the fact that mediocre players shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame. There have been plenty of players throughout history who have made larger impacts to the game and their teams who didn't get into the Hall.

Archive

12-04-2005, 08:38 PM

Posted By: Brian H (misunderestimated)Tinker is probably among the least deserving HOfers in my mind -- somewher in the "top" (perhaps "bottom" is a better word) 15 or so mistakes. I would rate him above: Lindstrom G. Kelly Bancroft (probably some of the other Frisch-Giant HOFers I am missing) Marquard Pop Haines Tommy McCarthy Travis Jackson and more or less in the "ballpark with": Rizzuto Chesbro Ferrell Kell Schalk Wallace Hafey Mazeroski Drysdale Pennock Bender (note the number of middle infielders) But in his defense: he was a key player on a great team; a top notch fielder; clutch hitter (especially off of Matty, the Cubs nemesis); he seldom struck out* <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/tinkejo01.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseball-reference.com/t/tinkejo01.shtml</a> His offense probably looks particulary weak through our eyes because he played his entire career in the dead ball era and played SS, a no-hit great field position until recently. ___________ * Those "3 seasons without a K" are not documented -- batter's Ks were not recorded from what I've seen until the 1910 season.

Archive

12-04-2005, 09:28 PM

Posted By: Julie Vognar............................<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

12-05-2005, 11:45 AM

Posted By: Darren J. DuetBut there are a number of mediocre players in the Hall. Refer to above list.

Archive

12-05-2005, 12:33 PM

Posted By: warshawlawA short career (11 years), but a top-flight pitcher during most of it. 5x over 20 wins (including 41 in one season), 1x 19 wins, led league in wins, win %, shutouts twice each.

Archive

12-05-2005, 06:56 PM

Posted By: MisunderestimatedAdam - I agree -- but none of these guys are mediocre; they are just lesser HOfers... I figure Chesbro is a bit better than the Pitching equivalent of Roger Maris. Factoring in relative historical value he's maybe Drysdale level -- a bit better than Bender, Pennock or Haines (all HOF pitchers)a bit worse than Waddell (but generally similar) or even Dean... relatively low lifetime value for a Pitcher of his era (compare with Willis, who doesn't impress me much McGinitty who impresses me more or Plank who impresses me alot --even though none of his seasons approach Chesbro's best years)one season for the ages and one other top flight season (like Maris in 60 & 61) but not even sustained dominance on par with Koufax, Newhouser or Walsh who didn't reach the big career numbers but were dominant for more than a year or two.. Anyway I'll stop rambling...

Archive

12-05-2005, 08:50 PM

Posted By: Richard MassonBilly Herman is missing from the list above. He's my poster child example of the dilution that's been going on since the Veterans committee went nuts in the 1970s. Bancroft, Hafey and Lindstrom? What were they thinking?

Archive

12-05-2005, 09:23 PM

Posted By: MikeYou mention Drysdale in your list of non hall of fame stats who are HOF'ers.... here is a statistical look at Don and another pitcher; see if you can guess who it is. Drysdale w l g gs cg sho sv ip h r er hr bb k hbp wp era lg/era 162 Game Avg 14 11 35 32 11 3 0 237.3 213 89 77 19 59 171 10 5 2.95 3.57 Career High 25 17 44 42 21 8 2 321.3 287 122 104 30 93 251 20 11 2.15 4.35 mystery man 162 Game Avg 14 11 35 32 9 2 0 233.0 204 94 84 18 82 151 1 7 3.27 3.53 Career High 24 19 40 40 24 8 1 312.0 284 143 132 26 111 301 5 15 1.82 4.08 $5.00 to the paypal account of the first person who can identify the mystery man whose comparison to Drysdale is proof that Don shouldn't be in the HOF or this other player should be! For reference don started 465 games won 209 lost 166 with 2486 k's mystery man started 473 games won 209 lost 161 with 2175 k's I'll need an answer within 24 hrs(930 pm PST) to award the prize. Good Luck Son; fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

Archive

12-05-2005, 09:38 PM

Posted By: MatthewHey Mike How about Vida Blue?

Archive

12-05-2005, 09:38 PM

Posted By: tbobMilt Pappas?

Archive

12-05-2005, 09:43 PM

Posted By: DJDAMN IT MATTHEW! I needed (bleeping) extra Christmas money! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Vida (bleeping) Blue. DJ

Archive

12-05-2005, 10:03 PM

Posted By: Mikeyou are correct! Send me an email at tigersguy1@comcast.net and I will get you your fiver right away! Son; fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

Archive

12-05-2005, 10:06 PM

Posted By: PaulDrysdale v. Blue. A 30 point difference in ERA does make a difference, especially when the league ERA for both players is the same.

Archive

12-05-2005, 10:42 PM

Posted By: jay behrenshow do you figure the league ERA for Blue and Drysdale are the same? Blue played from 1969-86, Drysdale from 1956-69. Drysdale's ERA benefited from an era when pitching dominated and also from one of the best pitchers parks ever, Chavez Ravine. Jay I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.