Frank Chance - HOF Material?
 

I always considered Frank Chance a major Hall-of-Famer. But after looking up the numbers, now I am not so sure. I wonder if his relationship with Tinker and Evers gave him the chance to get into the HOF. I know he had MVP season, but does that justify his place in the Hall?

IMHO not the most questionable choice, especially considering his managerial record, but surely not one of the upper-echelon guys.

I was under the (perhaps erroneous) impression that the criterion for Hall of Fame entry were not purely statistical, but a player's notoriety entered into it as well. I believe this is implied by calling it the "Hall of Fame" and not the "Hall of Great." While we can certainly agree that certain enshrined players do not merit inclusion for either reason, I believe Chance's combination of being a well known star player/manager and having solid numbers, justifies his place.

Tinker - Evers - Chance were, of course, voted in as "one" entry do to poem.*
If on individual records, IMO:

Chance -- yes (player/manager)
Evers -- yes (no Eddie Collins, but still top 2nd)
Tinker -- no (solid, but no)



* Edit to add I have no problem with the "poen" induction, and agree with Matt's "notable" point ..............

I also, for that same reason, agree Stallone should be in Boxing HOF.
As well as Mr. Magoo in the Rutgers HOF (which he is).

baseball reference's take on it
 

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Batting - 7 (312), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 73 (329), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 22 (737), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 24 (533), Average HOFer ≈ 50

IMHO all three could have been left out of the HOF and were elected largely based on the fame that came to them through the poem. Chance was by far the best choice of the three, managerial career, .296 ba, leadership, etc. Tinker and Evers .260 to .270 hitters, marginal HOFers.

Evers
 

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Gray Ink Batting - 39 (626), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 34 (544), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 24 (533), Average HOFer ≈ 50

tinker
 

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Batting - 1 (728), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 39 (626), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 24 (685), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 20 (746), Average HOFer ≈ 50

how did you come to the conclusion that chance was a major hof'er?

Honestly, I don't know. I guess it was always an assumption on my part because of the Name Recognition. I've just started getting into looking at HOFers Stats because some of my favorite modern players are being blacklisted from the HOF.

I hope you've read The Politics of Glory (or Whatever Happened to the Hall of Fame?) by Bill James. For your sake, I really hope you've read it.

Chance's four pennants and two WS wins as a player manager is a HOFer stat on his own merits. Same as Whitey Herzog (4 and 2) and Billy Southworth (4 and 2), better than Earl Weaver (4 and 1).

Earl Weaver??

You have to consider that the Cubs' 1903-1912 W-L percentage is unmatched for any team ever over a similar span of years (I think I have that right - I'll have to check tonight). There must be a reason for that. If those teams, as is sometimes argued, had only one legitimate HoF'er (M. Brown), then how do you explain their remarkable success?

If there aren't any more players on that team that are up to HoF standards, then perhaps the standards aren't right. Or maybe other members of that team should be in (Kling, Reulbach?)

He was a peerless leader.

The Peerless Leader

In addition to Brown, they got a few great years each out of a few pitchers, such as Reulbach, Pfister, Overall, and Cole. Collectively that was enough to do the trick. Reulbach certainly would have been a HOF candidate had he put a few more comparable years together but he faded very young.

Comparable to Fred Clarke from the same era? Chance was a little better as a manager but not quite the player..........

Hall of Fame
 

Bill James makes a strong case that Evers was definitely the best of the three, especially as a hitter, and easily belongs in. He suffers because people link him to two less deserving players.

Exsqueeze me??? Can you explain this for the ignorant. Thanks.
JimB

Of the three, I would say that Chance is most deserving especially given his management skills and, in particular, the fielding schemes he designed against opponents.

Jim, sure. If you go to baseballreference.com, for each player, they have a number of different statistical measures which I believe are based on measures derived by Bill James. They are explained in detail on the site, but generally they seek to compare players (adjusted for era) and to show where a player stands in comparison to HOFers. The numbers in parentheses are where the player ranks all-time for that particular measure, and the numbers to the right are the numbers for the average HOFer. Here is a link: http://www.baseball-reference.com/ab...html#black_ink

So, for example, taking this one line from Tinker. Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 24 (685), Likely HOFer ≈ 100. Tinker's score on this measure is 24. This ranks him #685 all-time. A Hall of Famer would be expected to have a score of at least 100.

Or this line. Black Ink Batting - 1 (728), Average HOFer ≈ 27. Tinker's score on this measure is 1. This ranks him #728 all-time. The average HOFer has a score of 27.

Obviously these are imperfect measures, and tend to underemphasize fielding and can't capture intangibles, but the lists they generate do pretty consistently reflect who a consensus would view as the all-time greats.

chance
 

That is a pretty interesting web site that ranks the players...I scanned through it pretty fast, but I think Deacon Phillippe is the highest rated pitcher from the T206 set that is not in the HOF. Looks like Bill Dahlen is the higest batter ranked that is not in the Hall.

I wouldn't argue against HOF for those two.

Cheers,
Blair

Frank Chance
 

Chance was enormously popular and respected. Some reasons:

1. How many World Series have the Cubs won in the last 100 years?
2. The Cubs were known for their great teamwork, and skillful managing to get the most out of each player.
3. The Cubs helped bring baseball away from the East Coast, to become the National Pastime in America's heartland.