Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[spec]

Originally Posted by Harliduck

Here is a great exert from an article found on Sabr, you guys nailed it -

Hafey was elected to the Hall that year along with Dave Bancroft, Jake Beckley, Joe Kelley, Rube Marquard, and Harry Hooper. Subsequently, many of the selections made by the Veterans Committee, especially during this era, were seen as acts of cronyism, that honorees owed their selection to having been teammates of committee members like Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry rather than being based on merit. Controversy over admission of players chosen in this manner, including Hafey, continues to this day.[17] What gets lost in the continuing dialogue on this matter, at least with respect to Hafey, is that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner – and that is what ought to be remembered.

Full article here...its a great piece -

http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/96ae4951

Check out the paragraph before this and you'll see Hafey was honored -- like Elmer Flick (gastritis) -- partly for what might have been had his eyesight not deteriorated.

[ctownboy]

This is why I think some guys should be removed from the HOF. Either that or they create two different Hall Of Fame. One for the truly great players and another for borderline (or never should have beens) like Hafey.

There are a lot of guys who had two or three great years or who had their careers cut short for one reason or another but putting them in the HOF because of it just isn't right.

So what "that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner". Big deal.

Jim Rice had a longer career, a longer peak and put up numbers WAAAAYY better than Hafey yet he is considered a borderline HOF (some say he shouldn't be in). Fred McGriff had a better career. So did Tim Raines and Alan Trammell and Lou Whittaker and Dave Concepcion and Gil Hodges and .....

David

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

This is why I think some guys should be removed from the HOF. Either that or they create two different Hall Of Fame. One for the truly great players and another for borderline (or never should have beens) like Hafey.

There are a lot of guys who had two or three great years or who had their careers cut short for one reason or another but putting them in the HOF because of it just isn't right.

So what "that for several years he was one of the most respected players in the National League. He played on a par with the likes of Hornsby, Terry, and Waner". Big deal.

Jim Rice had a longer career, a longer peak and put up numbers WAAAAYY better than Hafey yet he is considered a borderline HOF (some say he shouldn't be in). Fred McGriff had a better career. So did Tim Raines and Alan Trammell and Lou Whittaker and Dave Concepcion and Gil Hodges and .....

David

And to skip back to the OP for a moment. Rice also wore glasses towards the end of his career.

Steve B

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by steve B

And to skip back to the OP for a moment. Rice also wore glasses towards the end of his career.

Steve B

Wikipedia "fact"...haha...go figure.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Which year did he play on par with Hornsby? He had some great seasons but never touched one season at Hornsby's career BA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)


Black Ink Batting - 7 (324), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 79 (311), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 69 (284), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 33 (254), Average HOFer ≈ 50

JAWS Left Field (57th), 30.1 career WAR/27.1 7yr-peak WAR/28.6 JAWS
Average HOF LF (out of 19) = 65.1 career WAR/41.5 7yr-peak WAR/53.3 JAWS

Those numbers are a nice guideline, but they're not definitive. Nor, are they meant to be. Example:

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Pitching - 78 (12), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 151 (94), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 227 (17), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 46 (48), Average HOFer ≈ 50

According to two of these four standards, maybe the greatest pitcher to ever play the game is a below average Hall of Famer.

Who is this? Sandy Koufax, who, like Hafey, had an abbreviated career. Now, Haffey never dominated the league the way Koufax did, granted. But certain players who do not have the eye-popping career numbers can merit inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

Those numbers are a nice guideline, but they're not definitive. Nor, are they meant to be. Example:

Hall Of Fame StatisticsPlayer rank in (·)
Black Ink Pitching - 78 (12), Average HOFer ≈ 40
Gray Ink Pitching - 151 (94), Average HOFer ≈ 185
Hall of Fame Monitor Pitching - 227 (17), Likely HOFer ≈ 100
Hall of Fame Standards Pitching - 46 (48), Average HOFer ≈ 50

According to two of these four standards, maybe the greatest pitcher to ever play the game is a below average Hall of Famer.

Who is this? Sandy Koufax, who, like Hafey, had an abbreviated career. Now, Haffey never dominated the league the way Koufax did, granted. But certain players who do not have the eye-popping career numbers can merit inclusion in the Hall of Fame.

First, Koufax rates very high in two of four categories, Black Ink and Hall of Fame monitor. And even on the two he doesn't rate so high he is way ahead of Hafey, who is just miserable in all four. Second,as you say, Koufax's peak years were SO exceptional that he deserves a little leeway;We can't say the same for Hafey. Third, I am not familiar with anyone saying Koufax is the best pitcher of all time. I think Bill James rates him in the bottom of his top 10 and that seems right to me. Finally, stats of course do not tell all, but the Baseball Reference stats are adjusted for era and are in my estimation pretty reliable.

[the 'stache]

A cursory examination of Hafey's numbers might not blow your socks off. But Hafey is one of those rare exceptions where the numbers alone don't tell the whole story.

“I always thought that if Hafey had been blessed with normal eyesight and good health, he might have been the best right-handed hitter baseball had ever known,”-Branch Rickey

Putting aside Mr. Rickey's appreciation of Hafey's talent, of course, Hall of Fame election has to be based on merit, and not what the player was capable of doing.

Chick Hafey played from 1924 to 1937. He only came to the plate 5,115 times, which is going to immediately limit the wow factor when viewing his stats. But Hafey's production compares quite favorably to the other great hitters from his era.

Without getting into a lot of advanced metrics, one of my favorite statistics is OPS, or on base plus slugging. OPS, of course, combines slugging average, the metric for power, and on base percentage, which measures the frequency with which a player got on base via a hit, a walk, or being hit by the pitcher. The truly great hitters of the game bring power, as well as the ability to get on base.

Let's look at the players from Hafey's era with the best OPS figures. For my analysis, batters will be required to have at least 3,000 at bats between the years 1924 and 1937.

114 hitters registered in excess of 3,000 at bats during the course of Hafey's career. Chick Hafey had the 18th highest OPS over this period. When you consider that several of the players ahead of him on this list are immortals of the games, namely Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Rogers Hornsby, Jimmie Foxx, and Mel Ott, in addition to other Hall of Fame superstars including Al Simmons, Chuck Klein, Harry Heilmann and Hack Wilson, Hafey's .898 OPS total is pretty impressive.



Hafey's OPS beat out fellow Hall of Famers Mickey Cochrane, Charlie Gehringer, Bill Dickey, Kiki Cuyler, Tony Lazzeri, Joe Cronin, Earle Combs, Luke Appling, Frankie Frisch, Pie Traynor and Billy Herman, among others.

Hafey was plagued by vision problems throughout his career, resulting from multiple beanings, and sinus problems. He was the first star to ever wear glasses, and one of only two Hall of Famers to wear them (Reggie Jackson being the other). He missed half the 1932 season because of a sinus infection. The sinus problems became chronic, and though he played more games in 1933 and 1934 than he ever had before, they affected his hitting. He left his team before the end of the '34 season to have corrective surgery. His career, for all intents and purposes, was done after the '34 season--at age 31. He did play 15 games in 1935, but was stricken with influenza. He decided to retire. He attempted a comeback in 1937, but his eyesight was so bad he could not hit, and had no power. He was no longer the player who set a Major League record with ten straight hits, who hit for the cycle, or even who won the National League batting title in 1931.

If you consider Hafey's career before 1932 when his illnesses robbed him of his hitting abilities, his OPS was .948. Consider his performance against his peers between 1924 and 1931. During that period, he had the 9th best OPS of all Major League hitters with over 2,500 at bats.



If you consider Hafey's 5 year peak, which took place from 1927 to 1931, Hafey's OPS was 4 points lower than Hack Wilson's, and 5 points lower than Jimmie Foxx's.



Author Lawrence Ritter and baseball historian Donald Honig included Hafey In their 1981 book The 100 Greatest Baseball Players of All-Time. They cited what they called "the Smoky Joe Wood Syndrome," where a player of truly exceptional talent might rank with the all-time greats on merit, despite a career sharply curtailed by injury. It's no secret that Hafey was described as a great hitter by his peers. He also had a legendary throwing arm, with arm strength and accuracy that has been compared to that of Roberto Clemente.

So, do I think Chick Hafey was a no brainer for the Hall? No. But he was a truly great player who had his career hampered, and shortened, by injury. I certainly do not feel his inclusion should be questioned.

I'll leave you all with one more thing. Chick Hafey has the 54th highest slugging percentage of all-time at .526. Here's a list of some of the players with a career slugging percentage below Chick Hafey's:

Shoeless Joe Jackson
Willie McCovey
Ty Cobb
Eddie Mathews
Harmon Killebrew
Bill Terry
Joe Medwyck
Jim Rice
Tris Speaker
Roy Campanella
Ernie Banks
Orlando Cepeda
Ted Kluszewski
Reggie Jackson
Rocky Colavito
Norm Cash
George Brett
Bill Dickey
Joe Adcock
Fred Lynn
Yogi Berra
Charlie Gehringer
Al Kaline
Mickey Cochrane
Tony Oliva
Roger Maris
Eddie Murray
Johnny Bench
Roberto Clemente
Dave Winfield
Jackie Robinson
Paul Waner
Joe Cronin
Tony Lazzeri
Honus Wagner
Napolean Lajoie
Carl Yastrzemski
Ken Boyer

[the 'stache]

I think this discussion is about to get a little more interesting, because I think that Chick Hafey is deserving of his place in the Baseball Hall of Fame. I'll put together my argument, and post it here in a little bit.

[Kenny Cole]

The problem with most of these HOF arguments is that there is an entire lack of context. Tommy McCarthy is my textbook example. You look at him and it is certainly fair to say that nothing about him stands out as a player statistically. But he was widely regarded as one of the smartest players of his time, was given credit (rightly or wrongly) for inventing the hit and run, etc. Clearly, he was held in enough esteem that he was elected despite his less than impressive stats as a player. Those stats don't look like much now but it doesn't matter because in the context of the time, he was perceived as one of the smartest, most innovative players who had ever played up to then. That's why he was elected.

I'll let Bill mount the argument for Hafey. IMO, he is in the bottom tier of those who have been elected. But there is always a bottom tier. If the HOF criteria is Ruth, then you only have Ruth and maybe Wiliams (or Bonds, which isn't an argument that I want to get into right now). That isn't a sustainable position. If the bottom tier isn't Hafey, its someone else and we're having the same argument, just about someone else.

My HOF definition is probably more expansive than that of others, so I don't have too much heartburn that he's in. I have more heartburn about the exclusion of players like Doyle, Phillippe, Stan Hack, Leever, Reulbach, Caruthers, Stovey, Van Haltren, Ryan, Bobby Matthews, Mullane, and several negro leaguers (such as Grant Johnson, Chet Brewer, Nip Winters, Ed Wesley, Oliver Marcelle, Dick Lundy and Bill Monroe among others), than I am exorcised about Hafey's election. Hafey got elected in part due to Frisch, but he was a pretty damn good ballplayer even before Frisch pimped him.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

The problem with most of these HOF arguments is that there is an entire lack of context.

Kenny, that's spooky. I'd finished part of the argument I was making in favor of Chick Haffey, but decided to watch the rest of my movie before diving into the statistical analysis I wanted to present.

But you've touched on the first point I am going to make:

Though I may never hold the title in any official capacity, I consider myself a baseball historian. As a child, I spent a lot of time in bed, and when I couldn't play the game I loved, or watch my friends play, I was reading everything I could find about the history of the game. My parents would find books in the public library, or go to the book store, and buy things for me to read. Friends of our family would also give me books to read. And If I've learned one thing from the literally thousands of hours I've spent reading about the players that have made the game great, it's the importance of context. When considering a player for the Hall of Fame, or determining if a player already in Cooperstown merits inclusion, it is essential to compare a player against their peers.

When I do my comparison of Hafey to the players from his era, I think it's going to be pretty evident that he belongs.

Kudos to you for seeing that. I've had more spirited debates with people on baseball history than I could ever remember. And far too often, the context of the era they played in is completely overlooked.

[bbcard1]

Originally Posted by ctownboy

There are a lot of guys who had two or three great years or who had their careers cut short for one reason or another but putting them in the HOF because of it just isn't right.

David

David, I kind of disagree with you here. I think the Hall of Fame that honors Chick Hafey and Rabbit Maranville should also honor Tony Oliva, Roger Maris, Bill Freehan and Thuman Munson. This is a place for lovers of the game and real fans and while one could easily argue that it is not what the hall of fame set out to be, it is what it has become and it is unfair to the families to go our and extract the Elmer Flicks.

I think there should be a second "inner circle" which would be honored in some other way...gold plaques maybe...it is comprised of players who one must know to meet minimum functional baseball literacy standards. It would start with an induction class of 11...one of each position player, one right handed pitcher, one left handed pitcher and one at large (manager, relief pitcher, another extra player). After the initial induction one player will be added to the class each year. My suspicion would be someone along the lines of Ernie Banks would be the minimum standard to ever receive consideration.