Back to Over-rated for a sec
 

I love the HOF debate...I could read through the rationale from all of our perspectives all night. This thread veered toward the hallowed halls pretty quickly.
The OP didn't mention that the most overrated pre-war player had to be a Hall of Famer, so I went with Chase.

But Jeff...as I assumed you might respond, the fascination w/Chase is indeed the irony that if he wanted to be among the heroes instead of villians, by most accounts he likely could have been. And while any of the banned players make good copy...they might be a better fit for the purer definition of over-rated. Chase may be rated about right...a good player and a very bad man.

Fred McMullin? Chick Gandil?


Reflecting on debatable HOFers is also a bit ironic. When discussing Maranville, Haines or Geo. Kelly for example...none of us "rate" them high at all. In fact they could be considered overrated by the HOF, but not by us, the readers of this forum!

Still, I guess they are rated higher than guys like Lou Criger, Bill Bergen or Freddy Parent...those are real bums :D

I'd like to submit Andy Cooper as the Negro League entry.

But this thread loses credibility by the fact that Sisler was even mentioned in it. I don't care that his career OBP was .379, which is not as horrible as some are trying to argue it is. If that was the only category careers were judged by, then I would agree that he should not be in the Hall. Fortunately, it is not. His career BA was .340. Three-freakin-forty! He batted over .400 twice. He also led the league in stolen bases 4 times.

It's true that he didn't walk a lot, because he was too busy hitting the ball. For those who actually watch the game of baseball, there are many situations where a hit is infinitely better than a walk. With less than two outs and a runner on first, would you rather have the next batter be a guy who walks a lot or a guy who hits .340? Runners don't advance from first to third on walks. Unless they are Rickey Henderson.

I'm a statistics nerd as much as anyone here, but baseball is not a home run derby. Offensive statistics should not be the only measure of a player's worth. Most board members would make the absolute worst general managers in the world because they'd assemble teams without ever considering defense. Their ace pitchers would have horrible stats from all the balls that would drop behind them due to lack of range in the outfield instead of being caught. Plus all the singles that good infielders would have turned into outs. Not to mention all the inning-ending double plays that would instead result in 3 or 4 run rallies.

Defense matters. What is it that wins in the playoffs? Is it pitching and on-base percentage?

Bill Mazeroski was the best defensive second baseman of all-time. Unless his career average was under .180, anyone who is considered the best ever at his position means he's a legit HOFer to me. In the 1960s Maz led the league in assists 9 times! Think of how many of those outs might have been hits. Turning hits into outs helps you win games.

Along those lines, Omar Vizquel should absolutely be a HOFer as well. Forget about his 2,800 hits and 400 stolen bases. No one has ever played more games at shortstop and he has the highest fielding percentage in history outside of future HOFer, Troy Tulowitzki who has played 2,000 fewer games.

Also, for you guys who only judge players by stats, why does Dizzy Dean never get brought up in these discussions? Go look at his career stats. You'll be shocked.

-Ryan

Dean and Koufax are two anomalies -- stretches of five or so dominant years but way short on career wins. Ed Walsh is sort of similar, his career win total wasn't that impressive. Interestingly, Dwight Gooden was sort of Koufax in reverse, starting with a run of five or so great years and then falling off a cliff, but nobody thinks of him as a HOFer.

As to Sisler, I never suggested he did not belong in the HOF, and neither did Bill James, my only suggestion was that he was overrated in the sense some consider him one of the very few best players ever.

Was just going thru the Baseball Encyclopedia and never noticed how pathetic Tommy McCarthy's stats were. Why is he a HOF'er? 2 spots lower on the page is Tim McCarver and he beats him in EVERY category but 1 and no one even sniffs McCarver for the HOF (and at a tougher position too, catcher over OF)???

Intangibles
 

There are a lot of intangibles that go into somebody getting into the HOF. You just don't see it in the stats, that's why I'm not a big fan of the Bill James statistical analysis.

Some players were great fielders. Some had 3-4 huge seasons which made them famous. Some guys were good, not great, but played 20 years. Some were great leaders of men, who elevated the level of play around them.

It's hard to look back and really understand exactly what made them great, but it's fun to try.

Everyone's dissing the HOFers from Arkansas :mad: Lou Brock, Dizzy Dean, Arky Vaughn, etc. Who's next, Bill Dickey? Brooks Robinson?

Bill Dickey and Brooks Robinson

The real Anthony would never make a comment like that.

Yeah, in retrospect I think that clothing line I launched with my social security number woven into the insignia may have been a mistake.