T206 Who should be a HOFer that isn't ???

[packs]

The home run has always been king but Gavvy Cravath doesn't get any love. Six time home run champ. Three years in a row twice. The Babe Ruth prototype.

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Ed Reulbach was 182-106 with a lifetime E.R.A. of 2.24, and these are not HOF numbers? Wow, tough crowd.... He won almost twice as many games as he lost...

Not a big Cubs supporter as I'm a Sox fan but Reulbach would get my vote.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I agree,career 27.1 fWAR, walked nearly as many as he struck out. Not a HOF'er

Sherry Magee falls a little short too IMO, 63.7 WAR is good, but among OF'ers it's only 40th all time, his wRC+ is also only tied for 64th among OF'ers all time.

During his career (1904-1919) he was only the 13th best OF hitter, and was 3rd in fWAR.

Not the best argument against Magee in my opinion. He's 40th all time in WAR four outfielders, yet there are more than 40 enshrined in the Hall.

Black ink - 35
Average Hall of Famer - 27

Gray ink - 210
Average Hall of Famer - 144

Only player to lead his league in RBIs four times and isn't in the Hall. This was in the Deadball Era.

He often gets compared to Wheat. While I think Wheat was the better player, that's no excuse to snub Magee.

[milkit1]

Johnny Kling, His contribution to the first post world series dynasty cant be overstated. He was considered the best catcher of his era and when he skipped 1909 to play billiards that was the only year between 1906-1910 that the Cubs didnt go to the world series

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by milkit1

Johnny Kling, His contribution to the first post world series dynasty cant be overstated. He was considered the best catcher of his era and when he skipped 1909 to play billiards that was the only year between 1906-1910 that the Cubs didnt go to the world series

I'd pass on Kling. In my opinion Bresnahan was better and really Kling is Ray Schalk with a slightly better bat but still unremarkable.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wins are a pretty worthless stat for judging individual production and yes his ERA is low, but his FIP is near 3 and for his era, it's good but not HOF worthy.

This is one of the examples of how old time "baseball card" stats really don't tell us how good a player is . His number look average once you get below the surface. 27.3 WAR over 15 years isn't much more than that, even if you say it was 50% low against him that would only make him a 40 WAR player, and over that career, once again, pretty avg.


ETA: during his career (1905-1917) Reulbach was 16th among starters in WAR, 27th in ERA and way down in the 150's in FIP. (we are talking an era, where the highest ERA among qualified starters (from 05-17) was 4.02!!!)

??? If you say so....

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Not the best argument against Magee in my opinion. He's 40th all time in WAR four outfielders, yet there are more than 40 enshrined in the Hall.

Black ink - 35
Average Hall of Famer - 27

Gray ink - 210
Average Hall of Famer - 144

Only player to lead his league in RBIs four times and isn't in the Hall. This was in the Deadball Era.

He often gets compared to Wheat. While I think Wheat was the better player, that's no excuse to snub Magee.

RBI's is a terrible way to judge individual production as it is contingent on the actions of his teammates to get on base.

IMO, there are people with less production in, but they shouldn't have been inducted either (Jim Rice, Goose Goslin, Monte irvin)

But, I am a small hall person, others want more in, I can see the argument (and Magee is as worthy as Jim Rice IMO)

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

wins are a pretty worthless stat for judging individual production and yes his ERA is low, but his FIP is near 3 and for his era, it's good but not HOF worthy.

This is one of the examples of how old time "baseball card" stats really don't tell us how good a player is . His number look average once you get below the surface. 27.3 WAR over 15 years isn't much more than that, even if you say it was 50% low against him that would only make him a 40 WAR player, and over that career, once again, pretty avg.


ETA: during his career (1905-1917) Reulbach was 16th among starters in WAR, 27th in ERA and way down in the 150's in FIP. (we are talking an era, where the highest ERA among qualified starters (from 05-17) was 4.02!!!)

Addie Joss 160-97, ERA 1.90....HOF
Jack Chesbro 198-132, ERA 2.69...HOF
Rube Waddell 193-143, ERA 2.16....HOF
Ed Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24...??

What am I missing?? Oh, I forgot, WAR....

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by rats60

FIP is pretty worthless for deadball pitchers. You might as well say he didn't strike out a lot of batters and there are better stats for that. The pitcher that wins the game is the one who allows the fewest runs. Reulbach had an ERA+ of 123. That is better than many pitchers in the HOF including 300 game winner Eddie Plank. That is 9th among deadball pitchers post 1901. Wins and winning percentage mean a lot for this time period when pichers often pitched the whole game. There are certainly worse pitchers in the HOF. That doesn't mean he deserves it, but for this topic, he is one of the best not in.

not really, if FIP were truly worthless those at the top wouldn't be the best of the era (Walter Johnson, Waddell, Ed Walsh, Joe Wood, Addie Joss, Bender, Mathewson...etc)

Wins still don't mean much even back then because a win is so contingent on offense. Which is not in the pitcher's control.

Plank may have a lower ERA+ (a stat I find seriously lacking) but he's 13th in FIP during the dead ball era.

Reulbach would have one of the worst K/BB ratios of anyone from that era in the hall. Sure there are probably worse pitchers in, but if the only standard we use is the worst guy in we can rationalize nearly anyone.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Addie Joss 160-97, ERA 1.90....HOF
Jack Chesbro 198-132, ERA 2.69...HOF
Rube Waddell 193-143, ERA 2.16....HOF
Ed Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24...??

What am I missing?? Oh, I forgot, WAR....

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

[Herpolsheimer]

Hal Chase... It would make T206 collectors the happiest and for his era he was considered to be among the best....

[bravos4evr]

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

RBI's is a terrible way to judge individual production as it is contingent on the actions of his teammates to get on base.

IMO, there are people with less production in, but they shouldn't have been inducted either (Jim Rice, Goose Goslin, Monte irvin)

But, I am a small hall person, others want more in, I can see the argument (and Magee is as worthy as Jim Rice IMO)

Magee did it four times though and I'll take him over Rice. Irvin is also in because of the Negro Leagues and I find Goslin a solid choice.

Going back to those RBI seasons, he batted .328 in 1907, .331 in 1910 (If the Chalmers Award existed, he probably would've won this year), hit .314 in 1914 and .298 in 1918. He's in the Hall of Stats and was consistently excellent in his time.

Also, in those seasons

1907 - OPS+ 169
1910 - 174
1914 - 158
1918 - 140

His career OPS+ is 137. This is no accident or mistake. The man belongs.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

Since you have got all the WAR nonsense. Please find me one pitcher that had a higher won-lost percentage than Reulbach (min. 175 wins) that is not in the Hall....Good luck....You need to get off this WAR garbage....Look at the player

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

Most people that know the game acknowledge the talents of Hal Chase. Yes, like a lot of other players,he was crooked. But he was one the best first baseman of all time, especially defensively.....Not really sure you know Baseball versus stupid ratios....

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

As another person mentioned in the Kling argument. It's kind of the same case for Chase.

Chase was considered to be the best defense first baseman by many people. Throw that in with pretty solid numbers (for the era) 2,100+ hits. A 17!!!HR season. Close to 1,000 RBI and not too far off .300 average.

I think it's more of his gambling issues that has kept him away from the Hall.

[MartyFromCANADA]

George Gibson and Jimmy Archer.

The hall overlooks catchers. Only Schalk and Bresnahan from the deadball era.
Only 17 catchers all time?

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by MartyFromCANADA

George Gibson and Jimmy Archer.

The hall overlooks catchers. Only Schalk and Bresnahan from the deadball era.
Only 17 catchers all time?

I just looked both of them up and Kling looks like a better candidate by comparison.

If we're talking more recent times, I think Freehan and Simmons have better arguments.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

Those are not facts, those are your opinions. I strongly disagree with them. YOU brought up ERA. I brought up ERA+ which is a much better stat as it adjusts for the park the pitcher was pitching in. Even your crappy WAR uses ERA +.

K/BB ratio is not a good way to judge a pitcher. Weakly hit balls, pop outs, easy flies, double plays are also good ways to judge a pitcher, but are ignored by FIP. FIP treats every hit ball as equal. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows that is not true. Baseball is a game of skill, not luck. Luck factors will average out over a career. Also, one of the main components of FIP are HRs, which aren't even a major issue in the period Reulbach pitched.

The bottom line is the team that allows the fewest runs wins the game. ERA+ is the best measure of that. All of your stats are fine in theory, but in the real world, Reulbach produced a great win loss record by preventing runs. He was a top 10 pitcher in his era and I will take him over all those guys with better FIP, but poor ERA+.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Those are not facts, those are your opinions. I strongly disagree with them. YOU brought up ERA. I brought up ERA+ which is a much better stat as it adjusts for the park the pitcher was pitching in. Even your crappy WAR uses ERA +.

K/BB ratio is not a good way to judge a pitcher. Weakly hit balls, pop outs, easy flies, double plays are also good ways to judge a pitcher, but are ignored by FIP. FIP treats every hit ball as equal. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows that is not true. Baseball is a game of skill, not luck. Luck factors will average out over a career. Also, one of the main components of FIP are HRs, which aren't even a major issue in the period Reulbach pitched.

The bottom line is the team that allows the fewest runs wins the game. ERA+ is the best measure of that. All of your stats are fine in theory, but in the real world, Reulbach produced a great win loss record by preventing runs. He was a top 10 pitcher in his era and I will take him over all those guys with better FIP, but poor ERA+.

Great points, thanks..Also, Kling was a fantastic catcher, closely worth to HOF status IMO...

[Topps206]

I don't get the Kling arguments. If you want to argue a former Cub, Dahlen is first and foremost, though Stan Hack also has a case.

[Herpolsheimer]

I believe that all of the great players have made it to Cooperstown from the early years of the game and now we are only discussing very good players that might get voted in by committees that have only seen today's games. However, there are some omissions like Joe Jackdon that clearly deserve the honor but have been deemed to be ineligible for one reason or another. it seems that Hal Chase may have fallen into this dungeon of despair with Joe Jackson and more recently Pete Rose. While not banned he clearly was highly respected by his peers and perhaps remains one of the few 'special' players from his era not to be in Cooperstown. He may have been loved.... 5 T206 Cards....

[Topps206]

Changing the Hall committees isn't enough. We need actual historians voting for this era, not Hall of Famers from the modern era.

Blyleven said he researched Dahlen and Stovey on Wikipedia.

Boy would I have loved to have been in that meeting last year when they were turned away.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Since you have got all the WAR nonsense. Please find me one pitcher that had a higher won-lost percentage than Reulbach (min. 175 wins) that is not in the Hall....Good luck....You need to get off this WAR garbage....Look at the player

I am looking at the player, and regardless of WAR he would be a borderline player who would make the hall worse not better.

pitcher wins are pretty worthless as a gauge of individual performance

yelling about modern statistics doesn't make them less valid

K/Bb ratio of nearly 1/1 is not good, having an FIP of near avg for his career doesn't help either.

If you want to put Reulbach in, you are going to have to put in about 50 other pitchers who are equally is deserving

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

As another person mentioned in the Kling argument. It's kind of the same case for Chase.

Chase was considered to be the best defense first baseman by many people. Throw that in with pretty solid numbers (for the era) 2,100+ hits. A 17!!!HR season. Close to 1,000 RBI and not too far off .300 average.

I think it's more of his gambling issues that has kept him away from the Hall.

But if you look past the baseball card stats to his slash line ,defense...etc he is not a HOF'er. .710 OPS might get you in if you are Ozzie Smith or Bill Mazeroski, but a first baseman??? Who isn't even in the top 200 hitting all time at his position? gambling or not his admittance on stats alone would be an abomination.


ETA: let's look at Joe Jackson for what a HOF'er looks like. 11 full seasons, 60.5 WAR, slash line of .356/.423/.517 .940 OPS, wRC+ of 165 (100 is avg) now THAT'S a HOf stat line!

[Topps206]

For anybody who thinks Johnny Kling is a HOF'er, how do you justify someone who isn't top 1000 in career WAR or top 1000 in career OPS+ as an enshrinee?

Also, Kling has a lower JAWS than Ray Schalk. If Kling was one of the best catchers of his era, that's a weak era for catchers, then.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Changing the Hall committees isn't enough. We need actual historians voting for this era, not Hall of Famers from the modern era.

Blyleven said he researched Dahlen and Stovey on Wikipedia.

Boy would I have loved to have been in that meeting last year when they were turned away.

Topps206 = mic drop.

DS

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

For anybody who thinks Johnny Kling is a HOF'er, how do you justify someone who isn't top 1000 in career WAR or top 1000 in career OPS+ as an enshrinee?

Also, Kling has a lower JAWS than Ray Schalk. If Kling was one of the best catchers of his era, that's a weak era for catchers, then.

I'm with you here!

career wRC+ of 100 is dead avg, career WAR of 21.3 over 1260 games is also dead avg. Sure his defense (as all catcher defense is) is probably undervalued a decent bit, it's not so undervalued as to make him even near the HOF.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by FourStrikes

Topps206 = mic drop.

DS

It just makes my blood boil. Justice for Dahlen and Magee. Justice for Gavvy and Doyle. Bill Dineen contributed so much as both an umpire and a pitcher and he hasn't been inducted yet.

I'm just so mad they'll only be considered once a decade. I'm also convinced Babe Adams is worthy of enshrinement. I would beg to be on the Early Baseball committee in 2020, but who ever said Hall of Fame voters were logical folk?

[Topps206]

How does this forum feel about Jimmy Sheckard and Cooperstown?

[Jantz]

My vote

[Topps206]

He wasn't actually in the T206 set.

[clydepepper]

Originally Posted by packs

The home run has always been king but Gavvy Cravath doesn't get any love. Six time home run champ. Three years in a row twice. The Babe Ruth prototype.

at the Baker Bowl? 260 feet?

on my best day, even I might have done that.

Oh, and the home run wasn't king until the Babe made it so.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

at the Baker Bowl? 260 feet?

on my best day, even I might have done that.

Oh, and the home run wasn't king until the Babe made it so.

That's still a lot of black ink in a monstrous peak in his later years and when he debuted it took him a while.

Babe Ruth became synonymous with the home run. It doesn't mean there were no kings before him.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

at the Baker Bowl? 260 feet?

on my best day, even I might have done that.

Oh, and the home run wasn't king until the Babe made it so.

His career OPS+ is 151. That is park adjusted. Short career, but that is 32nd in the history of the sport.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

His career OPS+ is 151. That is park adjusted. Short career, but that is 32nd in the history of the sport.

Tom C

It is not park adjusted. They adjust for runs scored, but that doesn't account for 265 foot fly balls that he got credited for home runs which would be outs in any other park. He only hit 20 home runs on the road, less than two per season. His OPS at home was .986, on the road .772.

He only played 100 games in 7 seasons. He couldn't stick in the majors with the Red Sox, White Sox or Senators. Only when he made it to the Phillies was he good enough to stick in the majors, taking advantage of the home field. If he was a HOFer, he would have played longer and made it as a full time player before age 31. His career was too short and too home field aided to be a Hall of Famer, in my opinion.

[Topps206]

Baker Bowl or not, Cravath had a peak bested by very few in history. He was probably the best player on that 1915 Phillies team which won the pennant. He absolutely should be in.

[packs]

How come no one talks about Fenway's short porch to right field but the Baker Bowl is always a point of contention?

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by rats60

It is not park adjusted. They adjust for runs scored, but that doesn't account for 265 foot fly balls that he got credited for home runs which would be outs in any other park. He only hit 20 home runs on the road, less than two per season. His OPS at home was .986, on the road .772.

Polo Grounds left field foul pole was 279 and right field 258. That was for two teams at this time period.

Tom C

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Baker Bowl or not, Cravath had a peak bested by very few in history. He was probably the best player on that 1915 Phillies team which won the pennant. He absolutely should be in.

I think very few would agree that he was better than Pete Alexander. I guess if you think Craveth should be in, we should ignore the Coors Field factor and put in those Rockies with home park inflated stats.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by rats60

I think very few would agree that he was better than Pete Alexander. I guess if you think Craveth should be in, we should ignore the Coors Field factor and put in those Rockies with home park inflated stats.

I was referencing position players, and really, I wouldn't have much of a problem with Larry Walker or Todd Helton.

Cravath was doing stuff in his day that players simply did not do.

[packs]

He was the prototype for the modern player. But it makes sense Cravath isn't in because neither is Stovey. Stovey was Mike Trout and Mickey Mantle before anyone even knew it was possible to play baseball that way.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by packs

He was the prototype for the modern player. But it makes sense Cravath isn't in because neither is Stovey. Stovey was Mike Trout and Mickey Mantle before anyone even knew it was possible to play baseball that way.

Both Cravath and Stovey would make my Hall.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Baker Bowl or not, Cravath had a peak bested by very few in history. He was probably the best player on that 1915 Phillies team which won the pennant. He absolutely should be in.

I don't see how a guy with 5 great years in an 11 year career should be a HOF'er. (and those great years aren't at Koufax type levels either) Yes his wRC+ of 150 is very good, but it is inflated by 3 very high years. If you are gonna let people in with those sorts of careers, you might as well open the floodgates.

and yes Larry Walker and Todd Helton are more deserving as they were as good or better for longer.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

I don't see how a guy with 5 great years in an 11 year career should be a HOF'er. (and those great years aren't at Koufax type levels either) Yes his wRC+ of 150 is very good, but it is inflated by 3 very high years. If you are gonna let people in with those sorts of careers, you might as well open the floodgates.

and yes Larry Walker and Todd Helton are more deserving as they were as good or better for longer.

Keep in mind that this is also because his career was shortened and didn't get his chance early on, but more than made up for it in his thirties.

Walker gets a raw deal. All it takes is a few minutes of research to see he was not a product of Coors.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Keep in mind that this is also because his career was shortened and didn't get his chance early on, but more than made up for it in his thirties.

Walker gets a raw deal. All it takes is a few minutes of research to see he was not a product of Coors.

I get that, he didn't even make it to MLB until he was 27. BUT, we have to judge players by what they did and not by what they might have done.

IF, Josh Donaldson has one more great year then declines into a 1.4 WAR player over his last 4 years would he be a HOF'er? That's kinda the argument you are making. I would say no, not good enough for long enough.

but, as I have stated before, I am a "small hall" guy and think too many borderline players are in already.

yet I think Jim Kaat deserves it, so there goes that right!

[Topps206]

I also am a Kaat supporter.

Cravath not only debuted at 27, he spent 29 and 30 in the minors.

His offense was fantastic, even at the end.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Topps206

I also am a Kaat supporter.

Cravath not only debuted at 27, he spent 29 and 30 in the minors.

His offense was fantastic, even at the end.

That is the problem. He wasn't good enough to play in the majors at a time when he should have been in his prime. He failed for 3 different teams before landing in a stadium where he could thrive. .273/.363/.410 are is career numbers in road games. It is no wonder he failed in Boston, Chicago and Washington. .410 slugging percentage for a guy whose strength was as a power hitter.

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by rats60

That is the problem. He wasn't good enough to play in the majors at a time when he should have been in his prime. He failed for 3 different teams before landing in a stadium where he could thrive. .273/.363/.410 are is career numbers in road games. It is no wonder he failed in Boston, Chicago and Washington. .410 slugging percentage for a guy whose strength was as a power hitter.

The other two numbers aren't bad, but that seems like spin to me. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't seem he was given a fair shake until later.

[packs]

I don't think you can really say he failed. He was playing in the PCL until he was 27 years old. You might see PCL today and think minor leagues, but at the time it was the major leagues of the West. Players made almost the same amount of money and could play close to home, so many of them did just that.