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

While I sit here going on hour number 1 and after re-scanning about 50 cards so far. (My new scanner came yesterday).

I'm begining to think of the players that I'm scanning. While there is a published book I'm sure you're all familiar with T206 Collection the players and their stories. They have some suggested "Overlooked by Cooperstown" players which I use for tracking purposes in my checklist.

Some of the players I agree with "Donnie Bush" besides his playing career he managed taking a team to the WS, was a partial owner and a scout as well. Can't get more of a HOFer in my book than that.

Some players I can't figure out why ??? George Stone ????????????

So setting aside those "Overlooked" players from the book.

Who do you think in the T206 collection should be a HOFer and didn't even get recognition in that book ???

I'll name a couple to start:

Ed Konetchy
Big Bill Dineen

HOW COULD I FORGET ////////////// Fielder Jones \\\\\\\\\\\\\\

****************************************EDIT FOR NET54 MOCK PLAYER INTRODUCTION PICKS********************************************* **************

1. Ed Reulbach 1 vote

Put Bill Dahlen in and take Rube Marquard out.

..
 

Lol Bill Dahlen is on the "Overlooked" list in the book. So he at least gets recognized.

I never understood why Larry Doyle isn't in. He was the premiere NL second baseman of his time and retired the best ever at the position in his league. To me, the best player at their position in their era is a HOFer.

Sherry Magee (who I know is in the "Overlooked" section in the T206 book)
Jack Quinn
Jack Powell

When you mention all that Donie Bush did in baseball, it points out that the HOF needs a category for career HOF'ers. Case in point, Charlie Grimm

.290 career hitter in 2166 games, drove in over 1000 runs. Very good career and I agree, not a HOF player.

19 years as a manager, 1287-1067 record, three NL pennants and I agree, not a HOF manager either, but you can't tell me that isn't a HOF career!

Dahlen will get in the HOF, now that WAR is a highly accepted stat to explain a player's value, you can't keep him out. Paul Molitor played 21 years, had a 75.4 WAR, Dahlen 21 years 75.2, one had no trouble getting in on the first ballot, the other has been retired for over 100 years, back when that WAR would have made him the sixth best position player ever up to that point.

When they put in Derek Jeter with 90+% of the votes and say, hey here is a shortstop with more value not in the HOF. Of course, you could say that with Barry Larkin, who basically had the same exact value as Jeter(aka not as good as Dahlen either) and he went in while waiting three long years, the poor guy :(

..
 

Interesting I like them as HOFers too thought that I was the only one who would consider them because of their high losses in addition to wins.

...
 

Donnie Bush also had 1,800 hits and was considered one of the best fielding SS's in baseball.

"As a batter, Bush did not hit for high batting average but was regularly among the Major League leaders in drawing bases on balls, sacrifice hits, stolen bases, and runs scored. At the time of his retirement in 1923, Bush's 1,158 bases on balls ranked second in Major League history. His 337 sacrifice hits still ranks fifth in Major League history, and his 1909 total of 52 sacrifice hits is the fourth highest in Major League history. He ranked among the American League leaders in stolen bases ten times, and, during the decade from 1910 to 1919, the only players to score more runs than Bush were Ty Cobb, Eddie Collins, and Tris Speaker."

"He was recognized as one of the best defensive shortstops of the dead-ball era. He had more putouts, assists, and total chances than any other shortstop of the era, and his 1914 totals of 425 putouts and 969 chances are still American League records for shortstops (and the Major League record for putouts). He also led the American League in assists by a shortstop on five occasions and holds the Major League record with nine triple plays."

I highly agree with Bill Dinneen. Extremely overlooked.

-Pitched a no-hitter in '05
-Led the AL in saves in '03 and '07
-Stole the pennant of the Highlanders in the last game of the season (beating Jack Chesbro and his 41-win season in a pitching duel in '04)
-Pitched very well in the '03 series with a 3-1 record and pitching 11 strikeouts in Game 2
-Jimmy Collins listed him in the best 6 pitchers he had ever seen (with WaJo, Joss, Chesbro, Young and Ed Walsh
-4 20-win seasons (plus one in '87 in the minors)
-40 consecutive seasons in the majors (as player and umpire).
-Umpired the first half of the first AS game, plus 8 different WS and 5 no-no's.
-Ban Johnson (in a letter to Babe Ruth) said "Dinneen was one of the greatest pitchers the game ever produced" and "He is one of the cleanest and most honorable men baseball ever fostered"

Rant over ;)

Hurry up Cooperstown :rolleyes:

Bill Dahlen
George Mullin

Dahlen will most likely be a Hall of Famer when he is eligible again.

From Wikipedia:
Dahlen was included on the Veterans Committee ballot for 2013 induction to the Hall of Fame. The results were announced on December 3, 2012. Dahlen received 10 out of 16 votes, falling 2 votes short of election, the highest total of any person on the ballot who was not elected and will have to wait until the end of 2015 for election.

...
 

I've always wondered how it would effect the card in the set of a player if they actually get inducted.

Deacon phillippe

His Boston card already sells for a premium but it will most likely go up some after the election. The Brooklyn card is of course considered rarer and sells for a good price already but will most likely go up as well.

..........
 

Thought it was his Brooklyn card ??? I have a Boston one and that would make me happy if it's Boston.

Sorry I meant the Boston card is selling at a much higher premium than most other non hall of famers.

I don't see there being any change in price if Dahlen gets in. His card is already priced as if he was a lower tier HOFer anyway...it's been priced that way for a while so I don't see much of a change if and when he gets into Cooperstown.

I think there will be an initial rise in prices as people try to get one for their HOF collection, or just because he is in the news. Eventually it will level off.

I actually had the same question a year ago about HOF candidates...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=184701

Dahlen and Ed Reulbach...

No love for Chief Wilson?

Reulbach is a good one. Nobody mentioning Fielder Jones either yet :(

Sherry Magee. One of the top five tool players of the deadball era. Career OPS+ of 137. 441 Career stolen bases. Only non-Hall of Fame player to lead the league in RBI four times. 176 career assists from the outfield. Over 1100 career runs scored, over 1100 career RBI (during the deadball era!!), over 2,100 career hits....and he was just 34 years old when he played his last major league game. What could he have done had he stayed in the majors the next four years? He hit .331 at the highest levels of the minors over the next four years.

To me he is a no brainer for the Hall.

Tom C

If Reulbach had over 200 wins I'd bet he'd be in by now. I also have an item that'd probably go up in value if he were ever elected, but that definitely has nothing to do with me supporting his candidacy.:rolleyes:

I always liked Doc White as a sleeper HOF. He's not even considered by anyone maybe it's a White Sox fans biased opinion though.

None: If they haven't made it by now, forget it.

..
 

Interesting approach on the question ......... Wasn't expecting that one.

And it assumes that they have known what they are doing all this time too. That's a very interesting take since there are clearly plenty of strong candidates from the 1800's as well

Agreed. Tony mullane for one.

How about Tommy Leach? Haven't heard anyone mention him.

Titus.

Pete I think Titus is an even further stretch than Leach.

If you'll go Titus I'll go Doc White !!!!

There are four players not from this set who I think should be in.

Bill Dahlen
Sherry Magee
Larry Doyle
Gavvy Cravath

Deacon Philippe definitely has a case, in my opinion.

I wouldn't give it to Dineen as a pitcher alone, but he has a nice combo case.

Love that this thread got a restart. Definitely agree on Dahlen. Why wasn't he elected the last time he was eligible?

Like Jimmy Ryan and Tip O'Neil, who has been enshrined in the Canadian Sports Hall of Fame for many years.

Some compare Ryan to Magee. In my opinion, the latter was vastly superior.

What I do have a hard time is Babe Adams, Deacon Philippe and Sam Lever. What should be the pecking order in terms of HOF worthiness?

Hof
 

Chief Meyers

In all honesty, what got Marquard in the Hall was his stretch from 1911-1913. He went 73-28, end of story. I agree about Dahlen, but I fear that ship has long sailed......

Not to worry. He'll have fewer chances now, but if we, as a movement cam get strong backing, he can get it. He's better many players already in and is better than tons of shortstops in.

I think Ed Reulbach is a valid candidate.....

He's not bad, I guess. Though I'm not crazy about him.

I agree that Ed Reulbach was a great player, but I don't think he's HOF worthy. He only posted one 20 win season plus here is his HOF stats:

Black Ink Pitching - 13 (175), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 123 (152), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 101 (97), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 44 (54), Average HOFer ≈ 50
JAWS Starting Pitcher (202nd), 36.6 career WAR/32.3 7yr-peak WAR/34.5 JAWS
Average HOF P (out of 62) = 73.9 career WAR/50.3 7yr-peak WAR/62.1 JAWS

-Owen

Another interesting device is the Keltner List, too.

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.

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...

I like George Mullin

Great pitcher Derek, but look at this comparison...

Mullin 228-196, ERA 2.83
Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24

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!!!)

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.

There are a lot of colorful players in the t206 set that are good to remember, but in no way hall of fame candidates. That era has have many players honored by HOF inclusion...probably way too many. I could live with Doyle or Dahen fine, but I think guys like Oliva, Murphy and Maris would be more credible fits and I doubt any of the three of them are going to make it. Some of the guys mentioned are real stretches. Their statistics just aren't there. Some of them have the most ______ of any player not in the hall of fame. There will always be a player with the most ________ not in the hall of fame. That is not a criteria for inclusion.

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.

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

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.

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.

??? If you say so....

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)

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....

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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....

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.

Catchers
 

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.

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...

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.

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....

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.

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

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!

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.

Topps206 = mic drop.

DS

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.

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?

How does this forum feel about Jimmy Sheckard and Cooperstown?