Is Charlie Bennett a HOFer?

[Rad_Hazard]

Before you respond or vote, please take the following into consideration:

Since the HOF committee for 19th century players is now anything pre-1980, here is how Charlie Bennett stacks up. I used the following statistics to show his dominance behind the plate: WAR, dWAR (Defensive WAR), rField (Number of runs better or worse than average for all fielding), WAA (Number of wins a player added to a team above what a league average player would add), and finally a stat showing how his bat was better than some of the numbers might show, OPS+.

NOTE: I used the following criteria to assemble these leaderboards:

1871-1980 - Since this is the HOF Committee Bennett would be put into
Played 80% of games at Catcher
Minimum 1000 games played at Catcher
It's also good to note that Buck Ewing played only 47% of his games at Catcher and King Kelly 36%, while Bennett played 88%

In my opinion, Bennett was the best Catcher of the 19th Century, and even if that were in question, he was clearly the best defensive Catcher of the era and ranks among the best of all time at the position when compared to all eras.

His defensive stats are absolutely incredible and his offensive stats, while on the lower side, are a bit deceiving as his OPS+ is quite high.

In my opinion, Bennett should be the next Catcher elected to the BBHOF from the pre-1980 committee, with the only other player in the argument being Wally Schang.

The 19th Century does not get enough attention, especially Catchers, and electing Bennett would be a slam dunk in my opinion.

It's also good to note that Charlie Bennett, who ranks 34th all time in WAR per 650 PA, his 5.9 being between Larry Walker's 5.88 and Frank Robinson's 5.93. He averaged over 8 WAR per 650 PA over an 8 year peak.

Bennett's career fielding percentage at Catcher is .942 compared to the league average of .909, a whopping 33 points above average!!!

It also doesn't hurt that Bennett was a pioneer of the game, being one of the first catchers to get right behind the batter, and may have been the first to invent/use a chest protector.

In the most grueling era for players, especially catchers, Bennett stands out most among his peers.

I would love to hear why or why not you think Bennett should be in the HOF.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from the excellent book 59 in '84 by Edward Achorn (https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Nine-84.../dp/0061825867):

Detroit’s Charlie Bennett, regarded by many of his contemporaries as the game’s top defensive catcher, entered the 1883 campaign with severely chapped hands—the result, he said, of working too long in frigid air in his off-season job. Unfortunately, when he started catching that spring, his hard hands cracked open, and the cracks, pounded daily by fastballs, refused to mend. Bennett, who had a mother and sisters to support back home in New Castle, Pennsylvania, and could not afford to go without a pay packet, “caught many a game” that season “with blood dripping from his fingers’ ends.” That August, when he could stand the pain no more, he finally sat out and gave his split palms time to heal.

Bennett usually kept on working, though, even in “the most intense agony,” recalled Lon Knight, a teammate for four seasons. In one game, a ball split open Bennett’s thumb from the base to the tip, clear to the bone. A doctor ordered him to sit out until he had healed, warning Bennett that he was liable to contract blood poisoning that might well force the amputation of the thumb, or even his arm. But the catcher stubbornly played on, game after game. “Between each inning he would have to sponge the gash in his thumb with cotton soaked in antiseptic which he carried with him in his pocket, in order to remove the corruption which was continually flowing from the wound,” Knight recalled. Eventually, it healed over, but his hands permanently bore the scars of his trade. The Sporting News surveyed the damage in 1887: “His fingers have been battered almost to pieces . . . until he has not a whole or straight finger in the lot. Every joint is swollen and misshapen.”

[G1911]

I voted borderline. He’s not a bad candidate, he might be the best catcher not in the Hall already. A reasonable expansion, but I hardly consider him in the group of folks where it is unjust he isn’t in already.

I don’t think using the stat equations written around the modern game and what is valued now are particularly telling of this very different context he played. They do good with modern players, I do not really buy in that the gigantic quantity of value assumptions and comparison to an imaginary modern replacement player concept that form the root of WAR is much relevant to baseball as it existed in the 19th century. WAR is great for ID’ing overlooked players in 2014, not for 1884 for whom it is not written.

I wouldn’t hold that he only caught 954 games against him very much, due to the time context. I would probably vote for him as a very bottom tier hall of famer if the ballot did not have the most deserving 19th century players.

[BobbyStrawberry]

I voted yes. And a card:

[cgjackson222]

Always nice to learn a little more about a relatively obscure player.

Are the WAR and other stats you provided just for the years the players played catcher?

And do you happen to have a source for the WAR per 650 plate appearances stat you cite? That is an interesting statistic. I'd like to see the other guys leading the list.

I might include Gene Tenace in the conversation as the most worthy pre-1980 catcher. Yes, he retired in 1983, but most of his good years were in the 70s. Tenace's career OPS+ was 136.
Bill Freehan was pretty solid as well, as he was an 11x All Star with 5 Gold Gloves.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

I voted borderline. He’s not a bad candidate, he might be the best catcher not in the Hall already. A reasonable expansion, but I hardly consider him in the group of folks where it is unjust he isn’t in already.

I don’t think using the stat equations written around the modern game and what is valued now are particularly telling of this very different context he played. They do good with modern players, I do not really buy in that the gigantic quantity of value assumptions and comparison to an imaginary modern replacement player concept that form the root of WAR is much relevant to baseball as it existed in the 19th century. WAR is great for ID’ing overlooked players in 2014, not for 1884 for whom it is not written.

I wouldn’t hold that he only caught 954 games against him very much, due to the time context. I would probably vote for him as a very bottom tier hall of famer if the ballot did not have the most deserving 19th century players.

Thank you for the well thought out response.

The reason I like modern sabermetric statistics with 19th century players is that a lot of their on-field contributions seem quite low when compared to modern players and this is a product of the times (lower amounts of games played per season, etc).

Modern sabermetric statistics are formed using their contemporaries and not modern players so it really gives a good insight as to how they compare to their 19th century peers. Even if we didn't want to go that route, we can see that Bennett had a .942 fielding percentage at catcher to a .909 league average during his playing days, which may be his most impressive state.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Always nice to learn a little more about a relatively obscure player.

Are the WAR and other stats you provided just for the years the players played catcher?

And do you happen to have a source for the WAR per 650 plate appearances stat you cite? That is an interesting statistic. I'd like to see the other guys leading the list.

I might include Gene Tenace in the conversation as the most worthy pre-1980 catcher. Yes, he retired in 1983, but most of his good years were in the 70s.
Bill Freehan was pretty solid as well, as he was an 11x All Star with 5 Gold Gloves.

The WAR and other stats I provided are for all seasons/games played by those in the graphics (part of my criteria was 80% of games played at the catching position, but this includes everything at every position as long as they made the cut of 80%).

I agree that Gene Tenace and Bill Freehan, as well as my suggestion of Wally Schang are also great catchers to include in that conversation, but overall my money is on Bennett, his defensive stats are on par with Ivan Rodriguez, even though he played in a gloveless and mostly equipment-less era. He was also an extremely popular player in his day who even had a stadium named after him; Bennett Park in Detroit.

As for the WAR per 650 PA's, that was a quote from an article I found that was a bit dated as it was posted 5 years ago. While it was likely correct at the time, the numbers have shifted a bit since, but Bennett is still 38th in WAR per 650 PA's. Here is the data as I've compiled it from Baseball Reference. NOTE: this list is ALL-TIME for all position players

Fun Fact: I capped the list at the first 400 players and sitting at the bottom of those 400 is HOFer Harold Baines (2.27 WAR per 650 PA's), Baines also has the exact same WAR as Bennett (38.8) but has 11092 PA's to Bennett's 4310...

[cgjackson222]

Wow, that's amazing how high Bennett ranks on the WAR per PAA list. Any chance you could provide a link to that? I can't seem to find it on my own.

When I look at Carlton Fisks' WAR on baseball reference, it is 68.5, so I am not sure where the 39.5 in your table is from?

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wow, that's amazing how high Bennett ranks on the WAR per PAA list. Any chance you could provide a link to that? I can't seem to find it on my own.

When I look at Carlton Fisks' WAR on baseball reference, it is 68.5, so I am not sure where the 39.5 in your table is from?

The WAR per 650 PA is a list I compiled from Baseball Reference exports. I have it in an Excel sheet that I would be happy to email to you, just send me a PM.

As for the 39.5 WAR in the first post for Fisk, that is because part of my criteria for those initial lists was the era from 1871-1980, which is the era that Bennett would be considered for the HOF. Fisk's total was only 39.5 through 1980. I figured the best way to compare Bennett was by using that range since that is who he would compete against for induction.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Thank you for the well thought out response.

The reason I like modern sabermetric statistics with 19th century players is that a lot of their on-field contributions seem quite low when compared to modern players and this is a product of the times (lower amounts of games played per season, etc).

Modern sabermetric statistics are formed using their contemporaries and not modern players so it really gives a good insight as to how they compare to their 19th century peers. Even if we didn't want to go that route, we can see that Bennett had a .942 fielding percentage at catcher to a .909 league average during his playing days, which may be his most impressive state.

To the bold, I didn't say modern sabermetric's compare performance to players a century later instead of contemporaries; but it uses a set of value suppositions rooted in todays game, not the 19th century. There is not a different version of WAR that calculates value based on the way the game was played in a particular year or period, just a couple adjustment factors that exist mostly to punish 19th century pitchers so they don't come out on top. In order to find WAR an accurate account of a players performance, you must accept the value judgements it places on everything and think those reflective of the period in question. I do not think that it does. It's fictional replacement player it compares too is even less real in this period where there wasn't a highly regulated and developed feed system.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

To the bold, I didn't say modern sabermetric's compare performance to players a century later instead of contemporaries; but it uses a set of value suppositions rooted in todays game, not the 19th century. There is not a different version of WAR that calculates value based on the way the game was played in a particular year or period, just a couple adjustment factors that exist mostly to punish 19th century pitchers so they don't come out on top. In order to find WAR an accurate account of a players performance, you must accept the value judgements it places on everything and think those reflective of the period in question. I do not think that it does. It's fictional replacement player it compares too is even less real in this period where there wasn't a highly regulated and developed feed system.

Ah ok, I misunderstood your reply. I agree in the sense that I don't look at WAR as a defining stat, but I do find it to be a useful tool. An average player in the 19th century is much different than today, but I do feel that Bennett was so far above his competition at catcher that WAR really doesn't matter.
In this case WAR is just one of many tools that I used to determine Bennett's value. Any way you slice it, modern sabermetrics, Top 10 stat finishes, defensive stats, etc, he is a HOFer in my book, and one of the top 3 defensive catchers of all-time.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Before you respond or vote, please take the following into consideration:

Since the HOF committee for 19th century players is now anything pre-1980, here is how Charlie Bennett stacks up. I used the following statistics to show his dominance behind the plate: WAR, dWAR (Defensive WAR), rField (Number of runs better or worse than average for all fielding), WAA (Number of wins a player added to a team above what a league average player would add), and finally a stat showing how his bat was better than some of the numbers might show, OPS+.

NOTE: I used the following criteria to assemble these leaderboards:

1871-1980 - Since this is the HOF Committee Bennett would be put into
Played 80% of games at Catcher
Minimum 1000 games played at Catcher
It's also good to note that Buck Ewing played only 47% of his games at Catcher and King Kelly 36%, while Bennett played 88%

In my opinion, Bennett was the best Catcher of the 19th Century, and even if that were in question, he was clearly the best defensive Catcher of the era and ranks among the best of all time at the position when compared to all eras.

His defensive stats are absolutely incredible and his offensive stats, while on the lower side, are a bit deceiving as his OPS+ is quite high.

In my opinion, Bennett should be the next Catcher elected to the BBHOF from the pre-1980 committee, with the only other player in the argument being Wally Schang.

The 19th Century does not get enough attention, especially Catchers, and electing Bennett would be a slam dunk in my opinion.

It's also good to note that Charlie Bennett, who ranks 34th all time in WAR per 650 PA, his 5.9 being between Larry Walker's 5.88 and Frank Robinson's 5.93. He averaged over 8 WAR per 650 PA over an 8 year peak.

Bennett's career fielding percentage at Catcher is .942 compared to the league average of .909, a whopping 33 points above average!!!

It also doesn't hurt that Bennett was a pioneer of the game, being one of the first catchers to get right behind the batter, and may have been the first to invent/use a chest protector.

In the most grueling era for players, especially catchers, Bennett stands out most among his peers.

I would love to hear why or why not you think Bennett should be in the HOF.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from the excellent book 59 in '84 by Edward Achorn (https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Nine-84.../dp/0061825867):

Detroit’s Charlie Bennett, regarded by many of his contemporaries as the game’s top defensive catcher, entered the 1883 campaign with severely chapped hands—the result, he said, of working too long in frigid air in his off-season job. Unfortunately, when he started catching that spring, his hard hands cracked open, and the cracks, pounded daily by fastballs, refused to mend. Bennett, who had a mother and sisters to support back home in New Castle, Pennsylvania, and could not afford to go without a pay packet, “caught many a game” that season “with blood dripping from his fingers’ ends.” That August, when he could stand the pain no more, he finally sat out and gave his split palms time to heal.

Bennett usually kept on working, though, even in “the most intense agony,” recalled Lon Knight, a teammate for four seasons. In one game, a ball split open Bennett’s thumb from the base to the tip, clear to the bone. A doctor ordered him to sit out until he had healed, warning Bennett that he was liable to contract blood poisoning that might well force the amputation of the thumb, or even his arm. But the catcher stubbornly played on, game after game. “Between each inning he would have to sponge the gash in his thumb with cotton soaked in antiseptic which he carried with him in his pocket, in order to remove the corruption which was continually flowing from the wound,” Knight recalled. Eventually, it healed over, but his hands permanently bore the scars of his trade. The Sporting News surveyed the damage in 1887: “His fingers have been battered almost to pieces . . . until he has not a whole or straight finger in the lot. Every joint is swollen and misshapen.”

You forgot a 4th option…Who the F is Charlie Bennett?

[etsmith]

It's amazing how many people who claim to collect baseball don't seem to know any players from before the 1900's or 1920's.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by etsmith

It's amazing how many people who claim to collect baseball don't seem to know any players from before the 1900's or 1920's.

Then you might be equally shocked to learn that some people come to this site to learn things.

[David W]

I just read the SABR bio on baseball reference.

Definitely changed the way the game was played.

Interesting guy with quite a career.

Borderline but I voted Yes, as his contributions as a pioneer put him over the top

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by David W

I just read the SABR bio on baseball reference.

Definitely changed the way the game was played.

Interesting guy with quite a career.

Borderline but I voted Yes, as his contributions as a pioneer put him over the top

Great point! I should have linked the SABR bio on the initial post.

SABR Bio - Charlie Bennett - https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/charlie-bennett/

[Fred]

Originally Posted by conor912

You forgot a 4th option…Who the F is Charlie Bennett?

Ok, I'll admit it, I laughed when I read that post.

Another way to look at "who the F is Charlie Bennett" is that out of all the players that could have been selected for the N28 set, he was one of the 10 baseball players. If I didn't collect 19thC stuff, I'd probably be asking the same question about who the F he is.

Edited to add - my thought is he is either borderline or not a HOF caliber player, but these days, who to say who is a HOFer because look at how diluted the talent is in the HOF. Too many "buddies" were inducted by the old veterans committees from the past.

[RCMcKenzie]

I voted, "yes". If you were in N28, you were famous.

[Fred]

Here's a list of N28/N29 (1887/1888) baseball players:

N28
Anson (HOF)
Bennett
Caruthers
Clarkson (HOF)
Comiskey (HOF)
Glasscock
Keefe (HOF)
Kelly (HOF)
Mulvey
Ward (HOF)

N29
Ewing (HOF)
Fogarty
Getzin (Getzien)
Miller
Morrel (Morril)
Ryan

Bennet did make the 1887 N284 cut along with about 140 other players. Missed the almost 100 player list for K-Bats in 1887.
He did make the Scrapps issue because he was on Detroit (Scrapps were Detroit and St. Louis players 1887 NL vs AA championship).

Bennett missed the cut for several other card issues up to 1893.

[bgar3]

While looking something else up, I found a list of the best players by position for each decade that was prepared by Francis Richter for his History and Records of Base Ball., 1914, considered a classic history. He selected Bennett and Ewing as the best catchers for 1880-90. Just interesting.

[insidethewrapper]

I've read a lot of 19th Century papers. He was considered the best catcher of the 19th Century. Not sure how many catchers from the 19th Century are in the Hall of Fame, not many. Buck Ewing is in and he only caught 636 games out of his 1345 games ( 47%), not really a full time catcher. Bennett caught 954 games out of the 1084 he played in ( 88% ). He was a catcher. In Detroit , he was a hero, with a stadium named after him and he also threw out the first pitch each opening day until he died.

[RCMcKenzie]

RE: N28...Caruthers and Glasscock should be in the HOF. You could argue that Mulvey is not a Hofer by today's numbers, but he was popular in his day, a team leader who was one of the best 3rd basemen at the time.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by insidethewrapper

I've read a lot of 19th Century papers. He was considered the best catcher of the 19th Century. Not sure how many catchers from the 19th Century are in the Hall of Fame, not many. Buck Ewing is in and he only caught 636 games out of his 1345 games ( 47%), not really a full time catcher. Bennett caught 954 games out of the 1084 he played in ( 88% ). He was a catcher. In Detroit , he was a hero, with a stadium named after him and he also threw out the first pitch each opening day until he died.

I completely agree. If you look at newspapers from Bennett's playing days and long after, he dominates the headlines and sports articles. You can find hundreds if not thousands of mentions of his name, whether he was receiving a gold or silver medal for his services or some other praise or token of appreciation. He was well-known, a baseball celebrity in his day, and considered one of the best players in all of baseball, and certainly the best catcher.

Something that is very important that you have to consider with Bennett is that in 19th century baseball, defense was by far the most important aspect of the game. Players who excelled on defense were the most celebrated and admired (Bennett, Glasscock, etc) due to the gloveless and error-thick play of the era.

Here is one of the many, many examples of praise for Bennett...

Detroit Free Press
Wednesday, October 19, 1887

Since the Detroit Base Ball Club was organized and entered for the pennant race of 1881, up to and including this very day, it has numbered among its members a player without a peer upon the diamonds of the world -"Stonewall" Bennett; plucky, enduring, never-say-die Bennett; modest, unassuming, gentlemanly Charlie Bennett. Whether the Detroit Club was up to the fore, battling with the league leaders for supremacy, or bringing up a forlorn and tattered rear, Charlie Bennett has never failed to do earnest, efficient work for the team, nor lost one iota of his burning desire to see the championship pennant flying from a Michigan flagstaff at Recreation Park. He has stood up behind the plate day after day, week after week, and month after month, and stopped the hot shot of dozens of pitchers, good, bad, and worthless, with hands as thick as a boxing-gloves, with bleeding crevasses and canyons crossing his palms, and two or three fingers the color and size of red bananas.

[topcat61]

I've got no problem with a Bennett Cooperstown induction. Perhaps a petition drive?