jake daubert hof

[esd10]

A player that no one ever talks about for the hof is jake daubert. He was one of the greatest players of the deadball era batting .303 ,games 2001,putouts 19634, assists 1128,double plays 1199,hits 2326, total bases 3074 and sacrifice hits 392 those are hof numbers if i have ever seen them.

[sayhey24]

Originally Posted by esd10

A player that no one ever talks about for the hof is jake daubert. He was one of the greatest players of the deadball era batting .303 ,games 2001,putouts 19634, assists 1128,double plays 1199,hits 2326, total bases 3074 and sacrifice hits 392 those are hof numbers if i have ever seen them.

Actually they are not.

Greg

[Chris Counts]

"Hall of Fame numbers" are, like many things in life, in the eye of the beholder. In the eyes of many baseball fans, like myself, the numbers Jake Daubert posted are worthy of induction into Cooperstown, for the simple reason that he was better than some of the guys who are already inducted (starting with George "Highpockets" Kelly!). As far as I'm concerned, you could put another 100 players in the Hall of Fame and it would be a better place as a result. Other baseball fans believe there are too many players in the Hall of Fame and the standards need to be tightened so only the "best of the best" get in.

As far as I can tell, most of the Hall of Fame debaters here fall somewhere in between these two views. While I do enjoy the debate, I must admit I do get frustrated at times when people insist they know what "Hall of Fame numbers" look like. The simple truth is that numbers from a pitching-rich era (see 1906) and numbers from live-ball era (see 1930) can't be easily compared. Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame voters haven't bothered to study the differences between the eras. That is why Don Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame and Ron Santo isn't ...

As several board members have pointed out in previous Hall of Fame debate threads, Bill James' "Politics of Glory" is the definitive book on the subject ...

[sayhey24]

While I agree wholeheartedly with your point Chris that you can't compare players of different eras without putting their eras into context, it should be noted that Daubert was one of a bunch of very good first basemen from his era. Very good, but not great.
The argument that Daubert should be in because he's better than George Kelly is a very dangerous one, and it's an argument that Bill James absolutely hates. If we put in every player who is better than the worst player in the HOF, there would suddeny be hundreds of new Hall of Famers.

It is an absolute shame that Ron Santo is not in the Hall of Fame, and so sad that when he is finally inducted it will be posthumously.

Greg

[rhettyeakley]

I disagree when it comes to Daubert. He should be a HOFer without question. He was perhaps the best at his position and was regarded as such during his career. Also, the number one thing about Daubert that puts him over top and into the HOF for me is the fact that he stopped playing in 1924, not because his skills deteriorated (like in most players' careers) but because the dude DIED. He wasn't done yet and had it not been for seriously unfortunate complications from an appendectomy there is no doubt in my mind he is a HOFer (if he doesn't die)--However, I think he is a HOFer despite the fact that he died in 1924 and had a shorter career than he would have, but with a few more years of playing he is in (no question). Personally, I would rather see Daubert in the Hall than Ron Santo, but that is just my opinion.
-Rhett

[esd10]

daubert was one of the greats of the era and also what he did for the players of that time it was revolutionary and the start of the player union. I know everyone hates the player union today but back then they needed it.I think that's why he was not elected into the hof and that's sad for a player to do as well as he did in a era dominated by pitching.