|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Darren
Excuse my ignorance, but why is Roger Bresnahan in the Hall of Fame? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: dennis
http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/Bresnahan_Roger.htm this is why, a level 2 guy for sure |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Steve Dawson
He invented catcher shinguards and facemask. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Darren
Thanks Dennis and Steve. I've done my research including the Hall of Fame site. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Frank Wakefield
No hijack intended, but I can understand Bresnahan being in with greater ease than I can understand why Gary Carter deserved to go in. Roger's an acceptable choice when his entire baseball career is considered. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Al C.risafulli
He's in the Hall of Fame because you can't take a guy out once he's in. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Phil Garry
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Steve M.
How about Ted Simmons and my own "Deacon" McGuire? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Anthony
<<He invented catcher shinguards and facemask.>> |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Anonymous
Basically Bresnahan is in for the same reason Tommy McCarthy, Candy Cumming, Tinkers, Evers(whom I love deeply, but he isn't a hall of famer to me), and Chance among many others. The voters at the time voted for people based on who they played for, their noteriety during their careers and the fact that there was no meaningful criteria in place to decide who was a HOFer and who wasn't. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Paul
Bresnahan was one of the Hall's first and worst mistakes. I'm not a big fan of Ray Schalk either, but I do think he was leaps and bounds ahead of Bresnahan. Schalk led the league in fielding for catchers many times and during his career he was regarded as the finest defensive catcher ever to play the game. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Rhett Yeakley
Bresnahan is in for the same reason you mentioned for Schalk, he was considered by his peers (who were still around then) to be one of the great defensive catchers of his day. Catching around the turn of the century was very different than today, and fielding Pct's of catchers are not always completely accurate. Many a catcher hit right around the Mendoza line at the time, not to mention the fact they were often playing with injuries (usually to hands, etc). It is important to note that hitting for a catcher back in the day was probably more like hitting for a pitcher (but not to quite the same extreme), you needed your catcher to be good at many things, however, hitting was not at the top of that list. It does a disservice to those catchers to compare them to the catchers of today (two totally different animals). |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Rhett Yeakley
I just chose a random year (1906) to compare Bresnahan to his peers in the National League (these are the starting catchers of 1906). |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: davidcycleback
(double post) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: davidcycleback
Bresnahan was the first to wear shin guards as a catcher. I also thought he was the first to wear a batting helmet. I don't see how either 'invention' would boost a player into the Hall. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Mark L
Don't forget that he was probably the leading hitter on those great Giants teams of 1903-07. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Dave Snyder
Bresnahan was not so much an inventor as he was a pioneer. Some of my fathers relatives from the midwest knew members of Bresnahan's family and they claim he never once mentioned he thought of himself as a hall of famer - granted the hall was only 10 or so years old at the time of his death and there wasn't nearly the obsession among players then as there is now. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen
Statistical criteria for catchers are definitely more lenient. I think that the leadership nature and special physical demands of the position must be and are taken into account. The same can be said for shortstops. Statiscally speaking, why are Ozzie Smith, Pee Wee Reese, and Phil Rizutto in the Hall? Maybe they shouldn't be. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Denny Walsh
Isn't he Irish? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Patrick McMenemy
Here's a link to a site that provides excellent reasons why Roger Bresnahan most certainly does belong in the HOF: |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: RC McKenzie
Deserves to get in on the strength of his nickname alone,"The Duke of Tralee". Batted .350 in 1903 as an outfielder which may indicate how he would have faired if he had not caught. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Anonymous
Hmm, I didn't realize he was that good offensively. I knew he hit for average, but the OBP is quite impressive. Realistically it probably comes down to him vs Chief Meyers for best offensive catchers of the deadball era. But even with these credentials, he missed so many games that it's hard for me to say he had a HOF career. The argument that he was a catcher and had few contemporaries does make sense though, so I can understand why he would have gotten in. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: davidcycleback
Traditionally, catchers and (especially) shortstops were considered defensive positions, and offensive prowess was not essential. Most managers would chose to build their team around a good short stop. In fact in 1995, there was a poll of MLB managers of which player they would pick to build a team around. You know which player won the poll? Barry Larkin. Mike Piazza is a fine offensive player, but twenty or thirty years ago he wouldn't playing catcher-- as he sucks defensively. It was once said that, irrelevant to which sides of the plate you stand, if you you bat less that .200 from one side, you ain't a switch hitter. By looking at Piazza try to throw out runners, I'm not certain he's a catcher. Ivan Rodriguez has always been a superior catcher and his batting numbers have almost been inferior. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Roger Bresnahan
Posted By: Mike
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F/S P2 Pin Roger Bresnahan....SOLD | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 0 | 01-02-2009 05:10 PM |
Taking offers on Roger Bresnahan T204 | Archive | Tobacco (T) cards, except T206 B/S/T | 1 | 04-11-2008 01:34 PM |
E90-1 Roger Bresnahan | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 11-06-2005 06:12 PM |
Wanted Roger Bresnahan E91 | Archive | Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, W, etc..) B/S/T | 0 | 10-01-2005 08:21 PM |
Not Roger......The other catcher named Bresnahan | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 0 | 05-12-2004 06:19 PM |