Most Overrated Pre-War Player is...
 

From a purely statistical standpoint I'm wondering what pre-war player(s) you think are overrated...Not trying to "stir the pot" per se but more interested in which players' legends don't square up with the reality of their accomplishments. Cheers, Pat

Enough has been said about T-E-C, but I would have to go with Tinker as one of them.

All of the Black Sox guys!

Evers
 

Take a look at Johnny Evers stats. He certainly didn't make it in the hall with his bat.

Evers
 

From what I've seen on stats and my grandfathers stories, I think Evers is overrated. He (grandpa) use to say Tinkers-Evers-Chance was his claim to the hall of fame...

Evers and Chance are completely deserving Hall-of-Famers. As long as there are people out there trotting out the old nugget that a poem got them enshrined, they are actually under-rated.

Cheers,
Blair

Tinker
 

Tinker is Rizzuto...either you are a stat guy, then they aren't in, or you're a "value to team" guy and they are. I'll take Tinker and trade Bobby Wallace for Ron Santo...

Take Care,
Geno

Scoundrel
 

This might not be too popular among some here, but Hal Chase is imo way over rated and by all accounts one of the worst humans to play baseball. I avoid his cards the way he avoided sportsmanship. I cant see the fascination with him nor the Black Sox players, but to each his own.
Statistically speaking, i find it hard to see how many HOFers were included, most drastically Highpockets Kelly, first base, comes to mind.

George Sisler.

Lefty Gomez... but he's a HoF'er and deservedly so
 

Vernon "Lefty" Gomez gets my vote for most over-rated. Several pitchers with superior records (produced for inferior teams) are outside the hallowed walls of Cooperstown and will probably never gain entry. But Lefty's a Hall of Famer and deservedly so. (I just wish several others were also enshrined at Cooperstown.)

Sisler? .340 lifetime average and two .400 + years? Please, share your rationale.

Disproportionately low on base percentage and slugging average. Bill James agrees, by the way, calling him among the most overrated players of all time.

From Bill James' tome at 449
"Perhaps the most over-rated player in baseball history..... Sisler had a lower on-base percentage, in his career, than Fred McGriff, Alvin Davis, Earl Torgeson, Jack Clark, Mike Schmidt, Mark McGwire, or Gene Tenace. Or Ralph Kiner, or Elmer Valo, or a hundred other guys who didn't hit anywhere near .300."

I agree with a lot of what Bill James says but every once in a while he writes some of the most assinine things (usually when he is focusing on one statistical category--in this case OBP). To say that Sisler is among the MOST OVERRATED ever is silly. The guy was a great ballplayer and was viewed as such during his playing career. He was essentially the Tony Gwynn or Ichiro of his era--hardly a bad thing! Most overrated is a ridiculous statement when it comes to Sisler.
-Rhett

Agreed Rhett. And that awful obp is higher than Ichiro's career obp.

+1

Sisler's reputation is hurt if you disregard fielding, stolen bases, and all the things that speed and brains contribute to playing baseball.

I also agree with all the Sisler defenders--clear-cut hall-of-famer.

I don't think Bill James was suggesting Sisler is not a Hall of Famer, and neither am I, of course. I do think he may be overrated though in the sense of being considered one of the elite greats. Interestingly, on baseball reference.com, the three players most statistically similar are Heinie Manush, Zach Wheat and Kiki Cuyler. Not the creme de la creme.

Brian, he was universally described by the players of his era to be the best first baseman of the era -- and some said of all time. Yes, his numbers were not huge but many HOFers back then, in the dead ball era, did not have huge numbers. And of course he was a disgusting human being but that's what fascinates me: the duality of man, etc., evident in the Hal Chase story. Keep in mind, also, that Chase received more votes for the HOF in the first voting in 1936 than 18 future HOFers as well as Joe Jackson. He was that good.

I like Bill James, but I really hope for his sake that he said this early in his sabremetrics career. Making an argument based against one statistic is something that is frowned upon by all sabremetricians so it is rather hypocritical of him to do so unless he had some other supporting evidence.

Furthermore, if he's using one statistic, OBP is inferior to wOBA. Hopefully he said this in the 80's or 90's.

Of the names you listed, here is how they rank according to career wOBA.

Kiner .428
McGwire .415
Sisler .396
Schmidt .395
McGriff .389
Clark .375
Torgeson .374
Tenace .371
Valo .371
Davis .365

wOBA is a much more all encompassing statistic in terms of offense. Defense, baserunning, and "intangibles" makes things a bit murkier. But when it comes to the stick, Sisler is not overrated. Unless you're saying he is a better first basemen then Pujols, Gehrig, Thomas, or a few other 1b's

FWIW James said it in the 2003 edition of his historical baseball abstract -- fairly deep into his career -- his explanations aren't always complete so I doubt it is based on that one metric alone that just happens to be the one he mentioned.

Well wOBA was being researched in 2006 and came to a head in the popular book by Tom Tango "The Book", so that is a positive sign. WAR would follow shortly after. I just wonder who he thinks is overrating him. I wouldn't put him in the top 10 1B of all time, but I don't think many would. He would probably sit just outside my top 15. I think that is where is universally placed though amongst most fans.

EDIT: Off the top of my head he sits somewhere in the 12-14 range, but there might be a few names I'm forgetting.

George Sisler was a very great player before he suffered from a terrible illness that diminished his ability to play. Breaking in during the last 5 years of the "deadball" era, he was always one of the best hitters in the league. When the ball went Live, he got even better. My gosh, he hit .400 twice. But he missed all of 1923 due to a sinus illness and never fully recovered. To be fair to him and his admirers, we need to look not at the career totals but at his work prior to 1923. But even if we look only at the career totals, we will see that he was surpasses Manush, Wheat, and Cuyler because he was a great infielder. He was reputed to be among the best ever, right up there in the Chase / McInnis class.

Buck Weaver
 

I think Buck Weaver is overrated and his cards are overvalued. People put him in a class with Joe Jackson, as if his career was HOF caliber but he was ruled ineligible.

In reality, Buck only played 9 years and batted .272 with little power. His stats for runs and stolen bases are only average.

His cards sell for more than 20 times the price of a common.

King Kelly. Pretty luke-warm career for such a high-tier HOFer when it comes to the price of his cards.

About half the players in the Hall of Fame who played primarily in the 1920's and 1930's.....

Earl Averill, Rick Ferrell, Chick Hafey, Pie Traynor, KiKi Cuyler, Jim Bottomley, Travis Jackson, Dave Bancroft, George Kelly to name a few off the top of my head.

Hard to believe Sisler is in this conversation. Based on others general knowledge of his career and what seems like a lack of interest in his cards compared to many others, I'd put him right smack into the under-rated category.

The guy had some amazing years, with some awful line-ups around him.

OBP is flawed in that it gives walks the exact same relevance as hits. Hits most often move up runners extra bases, not just one base at a time. Sisler was also a Triples machine and stole plenty of bases.

Put the guy in the middle of a Yankees line-up and we'd be paying Gehrig like money for his cards.

I absolutely agree 100%. Bringing up Sisler's name in this conversation is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen presented in any thread!

Tommy McCarthy for one. I also agree that King Kelly, while extremely popular, is overrated. He was comparable to Buck Ewing offensively, but not the defensive catcher that Buck was. In the 1920's, Connie Mack called Buck Ewing the greatest catcher he had ever seen.

David, I understand why many of the players that are on your list are on there but the one name that really jumped out at me as being the notable exception on your list is Pie Traynor.

At the time Traynor retired he was literally regarded as the greatest 3rd Baseman that had ever lived. While his statistics aren't as sexy as some anybody regarded as the "greatest" at any position during their career (or in his case history up to that point) doesn't really have any place on an overrrated list.

-Rhett

more ridiculousness for tony
 

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/3...hall-of-famers

Looks who's number 1!! :)

traynor
 

The fact that he was rated number one just begs the question whether or not he deserved the ranking, if not then he was overrated. It's like trying to prove God exists because the Bible says so. As to the merits, I don't really have an opinion, I think third basemen do tend not to have great stats.

According to the writer Sisler "stumbled" into the Hall of Fame and Lou Brock is "the worst pick ever".

This is possibly the "worst article ever".

:(

Rube Marquard with a 201-177 record and a 3.08 ERA doesn't look overly impressive IMO.

Doug- you beat me to it. Rube Marquard went on a world wide tour publicizing himself as a HOFer after his good but hardly great career. We are not alone, a lot of fans feel he is the most overrated HOFer.

I thought he just said Brock was the worst FIRST BALLOT pick ever.

Buck Weaver the most overrated?????

"I have played against them all and in my mind there is no doubt that the best third baseman in baseball is Buck Weaver." Ty Cobb.

Buck was quickly becoming a star after adjusting to the hot corner spot. You have to remember he played in the dead ball era so his stats won't be as glamorous as later 3rd sackers. He also batted after some of the best hitters in baseball so his RBI totals won't be reflective as later players but he was a clutch hitter.
I would agree his cards are overpriced but that's due to his noteriety as being the only one of the banned 8 who didn't try to throw the Series and was on "the square."
Does he deserve to be in the HOF based on his career? Probably not since his career was cut short by the travesty of Landis, but most overrated? No way.

OK, I'll concede Traynor and replace him with Earl Combs and Joe Sewell....
:)

Peter, that may actually be the worst "article" I've ever read. There are no real criteria he is following--and I have little doubt he read what Bill James wrote and (as with many Bill James subscribers) if James wrote it it couldn't possibly be wrong.

I am all for statistical studies and analysis BUT there IS a human element to baseball--if there wasn't it would be played by mindless robots. I have a really hard time looking back in history and saying the guys that played along side the players themselves were idiots and couldn't recognize talent. Pie Traynor was deemed as the best all-around third baseman in history at the time he retired--Bill James has him ranked outside the top 10-15 third sackers. George Sisler was considered one of the greatest pure contact hitters and an intelligent player--but acording to this joker (the writer of the article NOT Bill James) he "stumbled into the Hall". Also how can any list purporting to include the most overrated players in history not include the likes of Bill Maz, Jesse Haines, Ted Lyons, Eppa Rixey and the bunch. Really, Sisler, Traynor and Brock are the most overrated ever...joke!

[QUOTE=rhettyeakley;863785]Also how can any list purporting to include the most overrated players in history not include the likes of Bill Maz, Jesse Haines, Ted Lyons, Eppa Rixey and the bunch./QUOTE]

I agree completely those players are not HOF worthy, along with many others. I don't think though that either the writer or James is suggesting Sisler, Traynor, Brock etc. don't belong in the HOF -- rather, they think they should not be regarded as highly as they are. As to your point about contemporaries, that sort of view can be biased, as we saw from the big push Frankie Frisch made to get lots of unworthies into the Hall in the 50s.

I agree that Frisch went too far with Lindstrom and Hafey, but most of the guys that he promoted were the mainstays of the Giants and Cardinals dynasties of the 20's and 30's. I am sympathetic to the argument that the top players on the top teams deserve an extra look when it comes to election to the Hall of Fame.

[QUOTE=Peter_Spaeth;863789]

A player who is underrated in my opinion when it comes to being overrated is Rabbit Maranville. He compiled a gawdy .258 career average and averaged a homer a year despite playing much of his career in a notoriously high average era. Why he is seldom mentioned as overrated when most baseball fans would take someone like Don Kessinger or Larry Bowa over him is pretty amazing. He did have a long career, but so did Jack Quinn. He was a pretty good player on a pretty bad World Champion...but is largely forgotten even when it comes to being among the worst of the best.

The hall of fame is what it is. You can't fix it, but it's cool. I would love to see an "inner circle" with an original 10 and electing one additional player every other year. It may take ten years for Mantle to get it...it would lead to an incredibly spirited debate.

The case for Rick Ferrell is hardly overwhelming. But hey he did have 143 hits in a season -- once.

So let's dial it up a notch...what is your worst possible hall of fame team? I'm sure I've missed a couple

1b: Kelly
2b: McPhee
ss: Maranville
3b: Linstrom
c: Ferrell
of: Hafey
of: L. Waner
of: Hooper
p: Lyons

I would add Waite Hoyt and Red Faber and Eppa Rixey to the pitching staff. Dave Bancroft might be worse at SS.

I would put Mazeroski at 2B over McPhee. I would argue Haines or Rixey at SP. Waite Hoyt didn't have an overwhelming career either, but did have great postseason success.

Not sure about the defense factor, but Ray Schalk can be argued at C.

I personally feel Hack Wilson is overrated. He had 5 "HOF" type years, possibly only 3 can be argued. His career numbers are nowhere near HOF worthy.

EDITED TO ADD: Agree with Peter's additions to the SP staff

After further reflection, Red Schoendienst would be a pretty good (bad) candidate at second base...

overrated
 

pre: maranville (had worse lifetime batting average than i did in my worthless little league era)
post: mazeroski( an amazing,even breathtaking homerun doth not a hall of famer make)

best,

barry

Don't agree at all that Hooper is one of the worst HOFers. Hooper was a star and mainstay of one of the first great dynasties of baseball.

I wrote the following a year ago in response to another post suggesting Hooper did not belong in the HOF:

-------------------------------------------

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

Mr. Schoendienst was a pretty solid baseball player, and baseball man. He played in a lot of ballgames, got a bunch of hits. He helped winning teams win. Would have been likely to have contributed more, but for some serious health matters. And then he coached. Then he managed. Then he coached some more. I figure he would rank among the top in major league ball games seen... as a player, coach, manager, and spectator.

Some folks here are aware I'm a Cardinal fan. Notwithstanding that, Mr. James' fine book about the Hall opened my eyes to what 'politics' did to the Hall. And Mr. Frisch had a hand in that... I still think Mr. Schoendienst is a sound choice. I didn't see Kell play, but I've talked with people who saw him, he deserves to be in. I've read what Traynor's contemporaries said, and I'm satisfied that he deserves to be in. Hooper should be in. Combs should be in. I do think that some players got in years ago that really lowered what I considered to be the standards for admission. Now that Puckett and Carter are in it really doesn't matter much any more... reminds me of that Queen song.

Maz
 

All the dissin' on Maz indicates that great defensive players get no love when it comes to the hof. His range factor was nearly a point above the leage average for his career. He won lots of games with his glove -- which, for reasons I don't fully understand, gets very little credit here. As the Rangers have repeatedly proven, you still lose when you score 10 runs and the other side scores 11.

No one is saying Ozzie Smith doesn't belong, but lots of people on this forum, most of whom I suspect never saw Maz play, have no issue with Ozzie but feel differently about Maz. I haven't sat down and put a pencil to it, but I suspect that Ozzie's numbers, in the context of the time he played, aren't much, if any, better than Maz's.

Ozzie is a great example of the recency/primacy concept. Voters saw him play, whereas most of them didn't see Maz play. They were blown away by Ozzie's defense, whereas Maz's defense was much less important because most of the voters never saw it. Ozzie wasn't much of a hitter in a hitter's era, but his qualifications for the HOF have yet to be questioned here. Maz, who was every bit the fielder Ozzie was,and probably as good a hitter in the context of his time, gets no love at all. Go figure.

Kenny
 

I think it's the position, not when they played, at least in part. Right or wrong, a great fielding shortstop is valued much more highly than a great fielding second baseman.

I saw Mr. Mazeroski play, in person and on tv. Same for Ozzie. There is no reasonable comparison. Maz was a good, steady fielder. Oz was outstanding, exceptional... after watching him play a game I frequently felt that he was good for one run after he'd gotten a hit or walked, then scored; AND that he'd probably taken a hit or two away from the opposition, and frequently a run. I don't discount the recency / primacy idea.... but to throw the Mazersoki comparison in there is an injustice to Ozzie.

Frank
 

I understand why you say you don't discount the recency/primacy theory, since you seem to have fallen victim to it.

No less a personage than Bill James has stated that Maz's fielding statistics are probably the best of ANY player at ANY position. His fielding avg beats Ozzie by quite a bit, as does his range factor. Therefore, you can't reasonably argue that Ozzie's numbers are hurt by the fact that he was
trying to make plays on balls that other fielders wouldn't have gotten to. Maz got to those same balls and when he did, he made the play. Double plays? Maz has about 200 more in two less years. To be fair, Ozzie had more assists, but that's about it. There is no question that Ozzie was a great fielder, but Maz has numbers that are at least as good.

Unfortunately, you are right when you say that Maz was a good, steady fielder. He made the hard plays look easy. He wasn't flashy. He didn't to backflips when he ran out to his spot but, of course, backflips don't prevent runs or win games. There is no question that Ozzie has Maz beat when it comes to showmanship. Moreover, Ozzie had the benefit of much more television exposure than Maz did. More people saw his great plays, by an exponential factor, than saw those of Maz.

Maz has been retired for 40 years so memories have faded. People simply don't remember how great a fielder he actually was. However, if you base your evaluations even in part upon the assumption that fielding statistics actually mean something, it is pretty difficult to say with any degree of certainty that Ozzie was a better fielder than Maz was. The statistics simply do not support that assertion.

Traynor - what kind of third basemen averages 3 HRs a year over 14 years. He'd never make it in todays game. He'd be lucky to make Team Korea.

Just givin' you a hard time Rheatt

I'll admit to having only seen Mazerozki play a time or three. Still, you'd think the writers of the time, the guys that vote for the HOF, saw him regularly. His first five years on the ballot he did not even garner 10%. His first year on the ballot, when presumably memories were fresh, he finished 23rd, behind Roy Face, Don Larsen, Lew Burdette, Al Dark and Ted Klu. He only finished with half the necessary votes once. While the baseball writers were far from perfect, it's hard to believe that they'd be that far off on a guy for enshrinement.

Todd,

I'm not necessarily advocating Maz for the HOF. I don't know whether he belongs or not. I suppose the answer to that question depends in large part upon how you view the value of defense in baseball. In that regard, it seems rather clear to me that, at least historically, the HOF voters didn't put much of a premium on defense. They were much more moved by the big hitters. Kiner was a terrible defensive outfielder and my 9 year old probably has a better arm than Kiner ever did. Kiner was, to be kind, a defensive liabilty. He also had a short career. However, he got in because of the monster numbers he put up during tha short career. I don't have a big problem with that.

However, Kiner is proof that gaudy offensive numbers are what get a position player into the Hall. Great defense has never been the stepping stone to immortality. IMO, that's a large part of the reason why Maz got no love from the BBWAA. The things he was really good at weren't the things they cared about. That's the whole point about the Ozzie/Maz comparison. For some reason, its different for Ozzie. Why is that?

If you look at Ozzie's offensive numbers, he hit .262, had an OBP of .337, averaged 2 HR a year, and drove in 50 rbis a year. He stole a lot of bases in an era when lots of people stole a lot of bases. Although he scored a fair number of runs, he is comfortably outside of the top 100 in that category. Maz' had more pop, drove in more runs per year, scored a lot fewer runs, had a .299 OBP, and didn't steal bases in an era when no one besides Maury Wills stole bases. I don't think either one of them has a reasonable case for the Hall if you look only at their offensive performances.

The thing that put Ozzie over the top was, obviously, his defense. It was sterling, remarkable, awesome, whatever adjective you want to use. The Cardinals were on TV alot so his wonderful defense was often on display and often seen by a lot of people. That wasn't ever true for Maz. In fact, I sort of wonder if Ozzie would have been a first ballot HOFer had he stayed a Padre and lost all that face time on TV.

Defense got Ozzie in. However, at least if you believe what the numbers say, Maz was in Ozzie's class as a defender. No one ever seems to consider that when they talk about how bad a choice for the Hall Maz is. Why is Ozzie a first ballot HOFer based on his defense while Maz, who was equally adept, should have to pay to get in? Since it was great defense that got both of them in, I frankly don't understand why they are treated so disparately.

Bill James rates Mazeroski as the 29th best 2nd baseman of all time. He rates Ozzie as the 7th best shortstop.

I never thought Ozzie Smith was a Hall of Famer, let alone a first ballot HOFer. However, since he is, Omar Vizquel should also be a first ballot HOFer. He is Ozzie's equal in the field and a better hitter.

Vizquel is going to end up pretty close to 3000 hits, although at age 43 I don't think he has enough gas in the tank to get 200 more. In the late 90s when the Indians had such great lineups, it seemed Vizquel was always the toughest out for the Red Sox.

Marty Marion
 

Given that Maz and the "Wizard of Oz" are in the HOF due to their defensive performances, then why isn't Marty Marion in the HOF ?

A great defensive SS with great range, Marty was an important "cog" in those great St Louis Cardinals teams from 1940 thru 1950.

Marion, Maz, and Oz all Batted about .262....and, they all have approx. the same range of Fielding % (.95 to .98).

I saw Marion play in the late 1940's, he made some unbelievable plays at SS. He deserves to be in the HOF. And, if he was a HOFer,
he would now be the oldest living HOFer at age 93.


TED Z

what about a short career...but great
 

How about the guys who honestly had a few fabulous years that are not in the HOF ? They are surely the equal of many names you folks are throwing out.

Just hard to believe the HOF voters put TOO MUCH stock on longevity. I always thought, "if a player was great, the player was great."

For starters:
Pete Reiser (Reesor)
Roger Maris
Bo Jackson

These players would blow away many actual HOF inductees. They captures the hearts of our nation when they played. They could do things not many others could do. And they held big time records (Maris).

Hands down the finest defensive outfield throw of any man ever to play baseball - All Star game - Bo Jackson throws out Harold Reynolds at the plate - from the warning track - on the fly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Absolutely incredible defensive arm. Yet they let Ozzie Smith in for his defensive merits.

Pete Reiser made the all-star game in 1941, 1942 & 1946 - throw in the war years - he would have been an All-Star for 6 consecutive years. Way better than a lot of the names I have heard here.

Marty Marion had 1448 lifetime hits. I don't think so.

How about rabbit maranville? Life time batting average of .256!

Regarding the Ozzie vs. Maz debate.

We are still comparing a SS to a 2nd Baseman.

As far as fielding and getting to balls/range. Ozzie played on artificial turf for a large portion of his career. Maz played on grass.

Re..Marty Marion
 

To quote Tina Turner...." What does hits (love) have to do with it ? "

We were told that Maz & Oz were elected to the HOF because of their great "defensive play".

Marty Marion's defensive stats and performance were equivalent to Maz and Oz. And, Marion
contributed enormously to the success of the St Louis Cardinals during their great years from
1942 to 1949.


TED Z

I saw Mark Belanger make some great defensive plays (on TV and in person), and he was a key defensive cog at shortstop on a string of really good Orioles team. Plus, he was a good baseball man. Better save a place for him.

Ozzie Smith still had almost 2,500 hits and over 1,250 runs scored and 580 stolen bases. I mean even if you argue longevity, you have to hit a little bit to get in the HOF these days.

Mazeroski also had 2,000 hits and 138 HRs

Marion only had 1,448 hits and 36 HRs with a 323 OBP. He might have been a very good player and instrumental to his teams success, but not a HOFer at all by any standards.

Pete Reiser and Tony Oliva are the two "what could have been" players who would easily have been in the HOF except for injuries. Both great players, both acclaimed by their contemporaries as stars, yet both star-crossed.

If old Casey hadn't blown a gasket in 1960 and had started Whitey Ford in Game 1, we wouldn't even be takling about Maz' Game 7. As great a manager as the Old Perfessor was, this was the strangest and stupidest move he ever made. Ford goes in Game 7 and the Yanks are world champs and Maz is recognized as a very good defensive player but never gets a sniff of the HOF. This was why Stengel was fired and Ralph Houk hired as manager of the Yankees in 1961.

Who's that pipsqueak next to Marty Marion?

From my Cardinal wire photo collection.

Hey guys......Miller Huggins has only 1474 hits and a BA comparable to Marty Marion's BA.

Also, there are other HOFer's that have less than 2000 hits.....Huggins instantly came to mind.
Of course Huggins is in for other reasons.

So, I repeat Tina Turner's......" What does hits have to do with it ? "

Recall, the HOF said that Maz and Oz were inducted due to their defensive play (not their HITS).
I was there at the ceremonies and well remember this statement.


TED Z

Huggins
 

was elected as a manager, not a player.

From baseball reference.com
Inducted into the Hall of Fame by Veteran's Committee as Manager in 1964.

Doooaaah ! ....No kidding ! 1

However, Peter how come you are ignoring the argument.....Maz and Oz are in due to their DEFENSE ?

Marion was as good an infielder as they were.

Look, I cannot argue with someone who thinks George Sisler is "overrated". That tells me we live in two different worlds.
And, do not cite Bill James again. He has been known to have had lapses in judgment. At times, James gets too carried
away trying to analyze BB strictly from a mathematical standpoint.


TED Z

Bill James has said and written on more than one occasion that -- I'm paraphrasing here -- one of the worst cases that can be made for a player being inducted into the Hall of Fame is the "If Player A is in, then Player B should be in" argument.

Common sense should tell you that if this method of reasoning were valid, then eventually every player would be inducted into the Hall of Fame, because there would be no end. Heck, even managers of company softball teams would end up giving speeches in Cooperstown. Of course, because fans are so passionate about players they saw play or spoke to at an autograph signing, common sense often goes out the window when it comes to Hall of Fame debates.

Ted: sure defense is the primary reason why they are in, but I think to make it principally on defense you at least have to meet a certain threshold of offensive production, and with 1400 hits Marty Marion just isn't there. With nearly 2500, plus the steals, Ozzie is. Personally I would not have elected Mazeroski. To illustrate my point if the undisputed greatest shortstop of all time hit .188, he wouldn't make it. Ted your perceptions of some of the 40s players like Terry Moore, Tommy Henrich, and others who (if memory serves) you have pronounced Hall-worthy just do not seem objective to me but seem tinged with nostalgia.

Edit I agree Bill James is not perfect.... For example I think he is insane to rate Arky Vaughan in the top 40 players of all time.

Peter

I fully agree with you that Mazeroski should not be in. And, I don't think anyone would deny Ozzie HOF status.
My understanding is that a Pittsburgh Pirate guy (who had a lot of pull) was on the Veterans Committee that
elected Maz.

Perhaps you're right that my subjective feelings enter into my preferences on guys like Tommy Henrich, Marty
Marion, Terry Moore, Gil Hodges, etc. I grew up seeing these guys (on TV or in a ballpark) play the game; and,
I was at the very impressionable age of a 10 year old to a teenager then. And, when you reach my age, your
mind starts to regress back to 1947 - 1960. And, believe me those memory's are as clear as if they were just
yesterday.

Regards,

TED Z

Ted I think it's human nature to be biased towards the older players, particularly where today's players are largely so inaccesible and unappealing.

Maz isn't in the Hall solely because of the homerun. He was in because he played second base like he belonged in a higher league. Back in the day when only a few games were on national tv, you had to follow the NL to notice. Thus, there might be some American League fans out there who aren't fully wise to all of Maz's accomplishments in the field. I never saw Marty Marion, so I would have to defer to people who followed the National League back in the 40's.