Hal Chase...HOF in the future?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>Has Chase ever even been on a ballot? Anybody think he could ever get in one day in the future?<br /><br />Who was the last player with a T206 card to be in a ballot? I'm guessing Vic Willis...didn't know if any have been after that....and I'm guessing if they havent been on a ballot by now, they wont ever be.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p>Lordy, I hope not. The 'man' was a POS. Terrific athlete however.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>There are lots of POS's in the Hall. You don't have to be a "good" guy right?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>I don't know who the last one on the ballot was but the last one elected was George Davis.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p> Agreed Dave, but few who were involved and corrupt on so many levels as the Prince. Don't get me wrong, in game play he was exceptional and as a manager -decent enough. Fortunately, you can't separate the game from his vast off-field immorality, per The Hall's standard. <br /><br />Great athlete no question. Role model, absolutely not. He simply didn't play fair. Not to Hijack, but I agree with Landis in banning the 8MO. <br /><br />*I do collect Black Sox as well as Hal (the first baseman). <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1172767058.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John S</b><p>I'm still hoping that Deacon Phillippe makes it in one day.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>You will never see the likeness of Hal Chase on a HOF plaque. Even if someone started a campaign to get him elected, enough dirt on him would surface to to ensure he never gets into Cooperstown. This was a guy who probably threw more games than the eight Black Sox combined ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Agreed, Chase doesn't go in.<br /><br />But it worries me that they might put him in one day... I can't figure them out. Who they put in last year, they put in Puckett and Carter, didn't pick anyone this past week. <br /><br />As a kid I thought the HOF was significant, a bid deal... it's gotten watered down. Lord knows what they might do one day.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>Puckett is a HOfer in my books, as is Carter. Their election while you may disagree with it does not mean that Hal Chase will somehow get elected.<br /><br />Chase is a pariah, a compelling character but a pariah. Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe will be in before Hal Chase even gets mentioned.<br /><br />The veteran's committee has its flaws and should probably be amended, but erring on the side of not electing people is better than electing too many. But Santo, Oliva and Minoso should be in I think. As well as O'Doul(for his contributions in Japan).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>"But Santo, Oliva and Minoso should be in I think. As well as O'Doul (for his contributions in Japan)..."<br /><br />Justin, I couldn't agree with you more ... Monoso, Santo and Oliva are the top three guys on my list, followed closely by O'Doul ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>After so many years since he last played, Chase could only be remotely considered if his numbers were off the charts -- which they were not. There is no groundswell of support for him or any special place in baseball history that he holds a la Rose. Rose is a shoe-in once he's reinstated and Jackson may eventually get in but never Chase.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1172777693.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Jeff is correct. Hal's bad charecter will keep him out. If he had super numbers he'd have a chance, but he doesn't. Yes, Ty Cobb had bad charecter but he had super numbers.<br /><br />Whether or not he was caught, I'm sure a lot of people assume Chase bet on baseball or did similar things. They likely figure, Joe Jackson is banned and Chase probably did much worse than Jackson. While Bill James readily admits Chase's great talent at the then essential position first base, the way James describes him in a book Chase might have well been Nosferatu risen from the grave. Duly note, I'm sure the eerie description had as much to due with Jame's bias and artistic flourish as with Chases himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>"Puckett is a HOfer in my books"<br /><br />He definitely wasn't one away from the Twinkie Dome.<br /><br />BATTING AVERAGE<br /><br />Home -- .344<br />Road -- .291<br /><br />OBP<br /><br />Home -- .388<br />Road -- .331<br /><br />SLUGGING<br /><br />Home -- .521<br />Road -- .430<br /><br />OPS<br /><br />Home -- .909<br />Road -- .761<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>I think you could through most HOF guys and find a significant discrepancy between their home and road records. Except for Stan Musial. That being said the Metrodome was not Coors Field, and probably cost Puckett alot of home runs, even if it may have given him more doubles. If he didn't go blind I think he would be with Gwynn and Ripken as 3000 hit and franchise guys.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>As Jeff and others stated his career #'s don't jump out at you.<br />He was a career .291 hitter in the days of Cobb, Speaker & Lajoie.<br />A .291 ave for any season for the above trio would be a horrible<br />year let alone to be a career mark. Chase also had 2100 hits.<br />While both are "good" they aren't "great" and surely not Hall worthy<br />even if he was a clean player.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>It's unfair to look at anyone circa 1994 or so through modern steroid numbers eyes-- and today's fans do this, subconsciously if not consciously. Believe it or not, lead off hitters used to not hit 50 home runs in a season, and not so long ago home run titles were often won with fewer than 40 home runs.<br /><br />During his height (meaning at the time, not today looking back), Puckett was yearly ranked as one of the best outfielders in the game-- both due to his hitting and fielding. That he was well known as a good guy, good teammate, only heightened his status. To me, it seems kind of silly that retroactively people think Albert Belle would be a better addition to team than Kirby Puckett. Those who say that obviously didn't have the locker next to Albert 160 games a year. While I'm not one to judge a player solely by team standings (if you put Albert Pujols on the worst team, they wouldn't win the World Series), I don't think it's pure chance that Puckett was on two World Series Champions (the underpaid Twins to boot!), while Belle was one numerous highly paid teams than never won the World Series.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean</b><p>One thing I find interesting is how many people think Chase is in the HOF, if you search eBay many people list him as a HOF'er. <br /><br />Sean BH

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>It's hard not to like BB cards like these....and, he's the only one that rates FIVE in the set.<br /><br />TED Z<br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/achasechase.jpg"><br /><br /><img src="http://www.freephotoserver.com/v001/tedzan/blchasecoupon.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Sean, it's hard to discern from his good, not great numbers, but in his day Chase was considered one of the very top baseball players of his era. I believe it was Babe Ruth who stated that Chase was the best first baseman he'd ever seen. I'm reading Charles Alexander's biography on Cobb and when Cobb was just beginning his ascent to greatness there was a newspaper story that stated that "other than Hal Chase, Ty Cobb is the best player in baseball." He was that good.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Why I find about baseball history is that many players who fans looking back say <br />should not have been elected into the Hall of Fame, people of the day, including<br />players and managers, would at the time have said were Hall of Fame worthy. If you read the player's<br />manager and period sportwriters say, the player sounds like a great.<br />If you read what today's fans and sportswriters say, the same player was marginal. It's<br />two perspective of the player, and the question is which one, if either, is correct.<br /><br />It's likely that today's armchair fans have a better handle of statistics-- batting average,<br />ERA, comparing states, etc-- but the people of the day, especially the manager and players,<br />say the player play in person and saw how he interacted with opposing players and teammates.<br /><br />Personally, I think statistics and modern insight are important, but I also believe that today's fans<br />should find out what the contemporaries thought of the player. Usually, when a negative fan finds out<br />that a player was considered a great by those who played and watched him, the fan's opinion change, if<br />not altered. When Hall of Fame manager John McGraw calls a 'marginal' player one of the best players<br />he ever coached, you at least assume McGraw knew something about baseball, players and winning<br />World Championships.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Don</b><p>"I think you could through most HOF guys and find a significant discrepancy between their home and road records. Except for Stan Musial. That being said the Metrodome was not Coors Field, and probably cost Puckett alot of home runs, even if it may have given him more doubles. If he didn't go blind I think he would be with Gwynn and Ripken as 3000 hit and franchise guys."<br /><br />I'm not trying to bash Puckett, but his home-road splits are severely skewed. Most players will have a home OPS about 20-35 points higher at home than they do on the road. A 50-70 point difference is pretty large, but Puckett knocks that out of the park with his 148 point differential.<br /><br />HOMERUNS<br /><br />Home -- 113<br />Road -- 94<br /><br />DOUBLES<br /><br />Home -- 239<br />Road -- 175<br /><br />RUNS<br /><br />Home -- 626<br />Road -- 445<br /><br />RBI<br /><br />Home -- 600<br />Road -- 485<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>What I find interesting about baseball history is that with many players: today's fans looking back say <br />the players should not have been elected into the Hall of Fame; but the people of the day, including<br />contemporary players and managers, would have said the player was an all time great. If you read what the player's<br />manager and period sportwriters said, the player sounds like a great.<br />If you read what today's fans and sportswriters say, the same player was marginal. It's<br />two perspective of the player, and the question is which one, if either, is correct.<br /><br />It's likely that today's armchair fans have a better handle of statistics-- batting average,<br />ERA, comparing stats, etc-- but the people of the day, especially the manager and players,<br />saw the player play in person and saw how he interacted with opposing players and teammates.<br /><br />Personally, I think statistics and modern insight are important, but I also believe that today's fans<br />should find out what the contemporaries thought of the player. Usually, when a negative fan finds out<br />that a player was widely considered a great by those who played and watched him, the fan's opinion changes, if<br />not switches. When Hall of Fame manager John McGraw calls a 'marginal' player one of the best players<br />he ever coached, you at least assume McGraw knew something about baseball, players and winning<br />World Championships and, unlike you, saw the player in person. You don't have to thus believe the player <br />should be in the Hall of Fame, but the contemporary opinion should at least be considered a significant <br />'statistic.'<br /><br /><i> </i> <i> </i><br /><br />For today's fans, statistics are often all they have to judge a long deceased player. But judging a <br />player by looking only at their numerical statistics often reminds me of the joke about the man<br />looking for his lost keys:<br /><br />At night, Man A walks up to another man, Man B, on his hands and knees in the bright light of a street lamp:<br />Man A: "What are you doing?"<br />Man B: "I'm looking for my car keys."<br />Man A: "Oh, so you dropped your keys here, huh?"<br />Man B: "No, I lost my keys two block over, but the light's much better here."<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1172786441.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>In the case of Prince Hal, statistics barely tell any of the story. He was a cancer, a gambler, a fixer and amoral. The teams he played on were made worse by his presence and he caused divisiveness everywhere he went. He did more damage to the game than almost any other individual player. So his 2100 hits and slick fielding can take a hike because of all the junk and evil he brought with him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>Hal Chase was a lifelong friend of my grandfather, who became a dentist right at the turn of the 19th century to the 20th. I remember my grandfather's eyes swelling with tears as he spoke of Hal. No matter what he might have said, I believe Chase was permanently banned from baseball by Judge Landis at the urging of Christy Mathewson shortly after the Black Sox 8 were banned. He was actually indicted along the the Black Sox by the grand jury. The old timers committee will never consider him for the Hall of Fame.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>So what is everyone's feeling on why Chase's cards seem to go for "almost" that of a hall of famer? His T206 pink portrait prices are bordering on ridicilous for a guy not in the Hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Justin</b><p>He is infamous, and his story is definitely more well known than Zach Wheat and Elmer Flick. It's similar to the lasting appeal of Joe Jackson. Being infamous gains alot more attention than just being in the Hall of Fame. People find the darker stories more compelling, which also explains Cobb's lasting appeal as opposed to Tris Speaker who doesn't get nearly the attention.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dave, first off because he was a real character of the times. Very few individuals had his charisma and the stories about him are legendary, 100 years after he first played. Second, if not for his crimes, he surely would be in the HOF in my estimation. He was held in that high regard during the time he played. You won't find any books written about Mark Belanger in 80 years, you know?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Hal Chase was banned for life -- hr can't go in.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Andrew, he actually was never banned for life. That's a common misconception.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>Jeff, that's an interesting comment about Chase not being banned. Some sources say he was officially banned, others say he was banned on a more "informal basis." He never returned for the 1920 season (he was probably too busy enjoying his 1919 World Series betting winnings!), so he never really gave Kenesaw Mountain Landis a chance to give him the "official" boot. But there was no way Landis was going to let him play. I understand Chase tried to play in the PCL, but Landis pressured the league to keep him out ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Chris, I think the 'informal' blackballing was certainly true. But there is no doubt that Chase never was officially banned from baseball. He just was so reviled that no one would give him the final, final, final last chance.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I just read that Chase received 11 votes in the inaugural HOF election in 1936. He was still alive at the time. I think the fact he was considered is proof he was never officially banned. Curiously, another of baseball's bad boys — Dick Allen — received 11 votes in the recent HOF election ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Chase was banned by Landis from major leauge baseball only. <br /><br />Oh yeah...the guy was such a good fielder that he still holds the record for dropped balls at first in a game.<br /><br />BTW, a little trivia.... there was one player who was banned for life and still made the Hall of Fame. Anybody know who?<br /><br />Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mark L</b><p>I know that Abe Attel is in the boxing hall of fame. Does that count for anything?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>Mays and Mantle were banned for life after they made the Hall but were subsequently reinstated.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>William Heitman</b><p>In baseball until he was gone, a Landis informal ban was the same thing as an official ban. That's why Jackie Robinson couldn't play in the major leagues while Landis was still alive. Landis even blocked a sale of the Phillies to Bill Veeck because he had learned that Veeck planned to integrate the team (this is what Veeck claimed). Chase's banishment from baseball, just as Heinie Zimmerman's, was unoffical for years, but both were later formalized by Landis.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Ferguson Jenkins was banned for life for a drug offense and he's in the Hall of Fame.<br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Chris Counts</b><p>I can't imagine Fergie Jenkins was banned for life ... if he could still pitch, someone would sign him today ...<br /><br />Minnie Minoso, on the other hand, was actually banned for being too old ... he tried several times to come back and be the oldest guy to get a hit, but baseball wouldn't let him. So he played in the independent Northern League when he was 80 and drew a walk after fouling off several pitches. I personally believe there's a lot animomosity among HOF voters over these incidents. I believe he was the best player on the last HOF ballot, but he only got 11 votes (less than half of what Buzzie Bavasi recieved), a sure sign somebody doesn't like him. Minoso, by the way, was clearly not popular among pitchers either. In his 11 years as an American League starter, he led the league in hit by pitches an amazing 10 times ...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>Jenkins is indeed correct...he was banned for life in 1980, reinstated later that same year, and then pitched until 1983. <br /><br />Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Misunderestimated</b><p>Actually what I find most preposterous is that Joe Jackson's "lifetime ban" still applies -- notwithstanding his death several years ago.<br /><br />I've read a biography or two (I forget) of Chase. He was probably the dirtiest (in the sense of corrupt) ballplayer in major league history. He thre games, he got others to throw games etc. Supposedly he even made out on the 1919 series. His fielding at 1st Base was reknowned but that was based on how he looked on the field not his stats. My guess is that he had a reason to drop all those throws to first base in that one game.<br /><br />Evan Statistically (without the ban and the gambling etc.) he still isn't quite Hall of Fame material for a 1st baseman. Although there ae a few other players who probably aren't hall of fame material either. I think I also read at one point that teams that acquired him tended to do worse and he moved around quite a bit for a decent player in his era. Alot of the hype during his playing days was generated by the fact that he was the marquee player for the New York Highlanders/Yankees for several years. He arrived after Keeler and Chesbro were well past their prime. The pre-Yankees never won like the Giants but they still got a lot of press.