Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by pclpads

The question could be posed at a number of HOFer's such as Sutter, Ozzie Smith, Rizzuto, Maz and a personal favorite, Rabbit Maranville. I presume career longevity was a consideration in his case. 23 years, but must have the lowest BA of any HOFer: .258. And so it goes . . .

I think the context of some you mentioned is by "position". When you take an Ozzie or a Sandberg, you have to compare them to other SS & 2nd's, wouldn't you agree? Rizzuto, Reese, ect...fall into that. Had Chafey put up those numbers as say a 2nd baseman, a position historically that didn't see a lot of offense, I would think it would be a no brainer.

As for Sutter...I don't get it. To me he rode the wave of giving closers a new found respect. His years of "dominance" were few and the man had a career LOSING record. (68-71). All the Sabr metrics and analysis will never add up to putting a man in the Hall with a lifetime losing record, and I don't care that he was a closer.

[Exhibitman]

I've always looked at it as the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Statistics. I value peak performance more than longevity: Koufax over Sutton. If a player was among the very best in the game for several seasons and is otherwise eligible I am OK with his enshrinement. Judged on what he did [not what might have been] as recounted in that SABR article, Hafey isn't a top-flight HOFer but he isn't a Harry Hooper punchline either.

Tony Oliva would have been a HOFer with a few more elite level seasons but he was effectively finished by age 32. I think for him "what could have been" has actually damaged his chances at the hall because so many HOF electors saw how great he was before he tore up his knees. Mattingly too; he has two careers, before and after back injuries, that are so markedly different that it might as well be two different players. That had to have affected the voters.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

...but he isn't a Harry Hooper punchline either.

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and deserving HOFer. I'll copy what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#79 all time), averaging 100 per season over his entire career,
- Top 100 all time in career base hits,
- #39 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per season,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong.

Cheers,
Blair

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

It seems this will keep being thrown out there, and I'll keep defending Hooper as a legitimate and deserving HOFer. I'll copy what I wrote several times before:

A few points about Hooper:

- He was a lead-off man with more pop than most,
- His job was to score runs - he scored 1429 of them (#79 all time), averaging 100 per season over his entire career,
- Top 100 all time in career base hits,
- #39 all time in triples, which means, in that era, both speed and power,
- Drew over 1000 walks, averaging 80 per season,
- Glove? Not even a question. One of the greatest. Key component of what many regard as the best outfield of all time,
- World Series? Unreal with both glove and bat. Won 4 World Series titles with Red Sox. The key player who was a constant in all 4 Red Sox championship years. First player ever to hit 2 home runs in a single WS game in 1915,
- Also stole 375 bases,
- The first and longest part of his career was played in the dead ball era with Boston. He hit .272 over this period. He went to Chicago roughly when the lively ball came into play and after that - in the twilight of his career - he hit .302...pretty good evidence of the effect of the lively ball on the stats of some players.

So I strongly disagree with the widely-held idea that Hooper does not belong.

Cheers,
Blair

Blair, you make some good points, but .......................

I think the naysayers would argue that Hooper's black mark is the fact
that he wasn't signed by the Yankees after his career in Fenway like Damon and Ellsbury.
And wasn't there a lad named Ruth or something like that.

Hooper went to the White (or Black) Sox in 1921.

Shouldn't every HOFer be good enough to play in New York?