Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[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

[howard38]

I don't think anyone disputes that Hafey was an outstanding hitter and even a likely hall of famer if he had been injury free and had better vision. But his peak was only five years and in those years he never even reached 140 games in a season nor were his stats mind boggling a la Koufax. Baseball history is littered w/hitters in Hafey's class that, for one reason or another, had short careers or career peaks. If all of them were inducted it would make for a mighty crowded hall. If you're a big hall of fame guy that's fine but as it stands now I personally don't see that he belongs.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

I don't think anyone disputes that Hafey was an outstanding hitter and even a likely hall of famer if he had been injury free and had better vision. But his peak was only five years and in those years he never even reached 140 games in a season nor were his stats mind boggling a la Koufax. Baseball history is littered w/hitters in Hafey's class that, for one reason or another, had short careers or career peaks. If all of them were inducted it would make for a mighty crowded hall. If you're a big hall of fame guy that's fine but as it stands now I personally don't see that he belongs.

I guess I'm looking at it a little differently. Again, I don't think he'd be elected if he were being considered today. But I don't have a problem with his being in, and in the context of his era, even though he only played in about 1,300 games, I feel he was worthy. He's certainly one of the lower tier Hall of Famers, but that's like saying "such and such was one of the least attractive Playmates of the Year".

One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The metrics are the product of extensive research and analysis and thought. The reason they use four is for the precise reason you mention -- any one alone has its biases and therefore its flaws. So your argument about Cecil Cooper is a straw man. Taken as a whole, the metrics are pretty meaningful. Just look at the rankings they generate -- there are perhaps some aberrations on any given metric, but not that many. And Chick Hafey is not even in the discussion on any one of the four metrics. He had a few good years. So did all sorts of people who are not Hall worthy.

it bears repeating.

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

[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 . . .

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Another interesting Baseball Reference feature is most comparable players. Let's use "by age" rather than "by career" for Hafey because his career was cut short. And we have:

Most Similar by Ages

23.Todd Hollandsworth (974) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24.Carlos Lee (972) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25.Bob Meusel (964) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26.Bob Meusel (944) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27.Babe Herman (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28.Babe Herman (945) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29.Matt Holliday (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30.Matt Holliday (941) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31.Bob Meusel (937) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32.Tony Oliva (934) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34.Tony Oliva (924) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Not exactly overwhelming.

[Peter_Spaeth]

"One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up. "

That is a circular argument because it applies by definition to anyone who was voted in by a Veterans Committee composed of peers. So are you saying let's just take their word for it, and exclude the possibility of cronyism which is at least as logical an explanation?

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

"One thing we really can't control for is the esteem his peers had for him. I think that carried a lot of weight, and we have no way of factoring that in. We can't talk to those players, unfortunately, since they're no longer alive. But I think the consensus was that Hafey was one of the very best hitters of that generation, and they believed his production backed that up. "

That is a circular argument because it applies by definition to anyone who was voted in by a Veterans Committee composed of peers. So are you saying let's just take their word for it, and exclude the possibility of cronyism which is at least as logical an explanation?

Oh, I think Cronyism played a part in his election. There's no doubt about it. But I don't think it's a circular argument. I don't believe every single player voted in by the Veteran's Committee was held at the level Hafey was. Branch Rickey said if he'd been healthy, he could have been the greatest right handed hitter the game's ever seen. I bet if you searched the net for quotes about the other 20 or so players inducted by the veteran's Committee, you wouldn't see that same statement made about any of the others.

What is said about a player's peers has to weigh into the discussion. Factors beyond a player's statistics has to be considered.

Imagine if the only thing that was considered about Jackie Robinson was his final numbers. Jackie was a career .311 hitter with an .883 OPS. He had 4,877 career at bats. He won one batting title. He lead the league in OBP once, and in stolen bases twice.

But what about the Tests? Jackie has a much better Hall of Fame Monitor Test score, 98 to 69. But should there be this difference? Robinson won an MVP, Hafey did not. That's 8 points for Jackie. Robinson got 3 points for each of the six All Star selections he got. Hafey got the first hit in the first All Star Game, but he only played in that one game. Why? Because that was the first time the game had ever been played. It's not that Robinson was that much better a player. Context. Robinson gets 18 points and Hafey gets 3, simply because of the eras they played in. The All Star game only existed at the end of Hafey's career. Then, again, Robinson won the MVP the year he won the batting title. But Hafey, the year he won his batting title, hit for a higher average. He had a higher OPS. He had a higher OPS+. But there was no national surge of emotion supporting Hafey.

Basically, there's 23 points of the difference between Robinson and Hafey. One player winning an MVP where the other does not. And one player being elected to six All Star Games whereas the other player didn't have a chance to go to the All Star Game in his prime...simply because it did not exist. Oh, and one more point for Robinson winning the Rookie of the Year Award in the award's first year. The award did not exist in 1924, when Hafey was a rookie.

Should Robinson really have a higher Hall of Fame Monitor Test score? No, of course not.

Context.

But you wouldn't take anything but the flat numbers into consideration. Jackie Robinson was an incredible, exciting player, and he broke the color barrier that had existed since the late 1800s.

But if numbers are all that matter, then Jackie Robinson shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, either. Even though he had 252 more career at bats than Hafey, Hafey had more doubles, triples, home runs, RBIs, a higher batting average, slugging percentage, OPS, and OPS +. Robinson had more runs scored, more hits, more stolen bases, and a higher OBP.

And while Jackie Robinson had to deal with hatred everywhere he went, he never had to battle vision problems. But, neither of those things matter. We shouldn't listen to the stories about Jack Robinson getting death threats. People repeatedly yelling the N word at him from the stands, those stories told by his teammates, should have no bearing whatsoever.

It's the numbers only. And if Chick Hafey doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame, then Jackie Robinson doesn't belong, either.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Another interesting Baseball Reference feature is most comparable players. Let's use "by age" rather than "by career" for Hafey because his career was cut short. And we have:

Most Similar by Ages

23.Todd Hollandsworth (974) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
24.Carlos Lee (972) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
25.Bob Meusel (964) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
26.Bob Meusel (944) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
27.Babe Herman (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
28.Babe Herman (945) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
29.Matt Holliday (942) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
30.Matt Holliday (941) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
31.Bob Meusel (937) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
32.Tony Oliva (934) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C
34.Tony Oliva (924) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C

Not exactly overwhelming.

Maybe not overwhelming, but it's not exactly horrible company to be in. Tony Oliva certainly had his share of voters who thought was HOF worthy, during his time of eligibility.

Babe Herman (despite being surrounded by horrible line-ups), hard to find many 20th Century batters with a comparable lifetime batting average NOT in the HOF. (Riggs Stephenson, who was essentially a part-timer outside of a few seasons, is all I noticed).

Obviously, some players deserve it more then others, but I don't like begrudging a man the honor, once he does make it in. I don't see the HOF as having to be some sort of ultra-exclusive club. It's a museum to celebrate the sport........not just the Babe Ruths and Willie Mays of the world.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The metrics are the product of extensive research and analysis and thought. The reason they use four is for the precise reason you mention -- any one alone has its biases and therefore its flaws. So your argument about Cecil Cooper is a straw man. Taken as a whole, the metrics are pretty meaningful. Just look at the rankings they generate -- there are perhaps some aberrations on any given metric, but not that many. And Chick Hafey is not even in the discussion on any one of the four metrics. He had a few good years. So did all sorts of people who are not Hall worthy.

it bears repeating.

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

Ok, I'll use Joe Jackson to show how absurd the Black Ink metric is. And if I can chop down one leg of the chair with little to no effort, imagine how easily it will topple over when I look at the the other three.

How many batting titles did Jackson win? Zero. Why? Because Ty Cobb was winning almost every single batting title. Jackson hit .408 one season, and didn't win the batting title. So, even though Jackson has the third highest batting average in baseball history, he didn't get a single point from his batting average. Yet if Cobb had broken his leg as a rookie, and never played again, Jackson, for the exact same performance, would have realized a huge boost. I haven't looked, but I'm guessing he wins at least four batting titles. That gives him 16 points of the 27 he needs to become an average Hall of Famer.

By the way, I understand why there are four metrics grouped together. I did a lot of statistical analysis in college. But nothing you have shown me makes that Black Ink Test any less absurd.

I have a question for you, since you keep throwing these out. All four are providing Average Hall of Famer scores. How long is the Average Hall of Fame career? Would it not follow that a Hall of Famer that's played 20 seasons, and has some 12,000 plate appearances would have a better score than somebody who played the equivalent of 8.5 seasons like Hafey? It follows that somebody who has played more than twice as long is going to have more opportunity to score near the top of the league leaders.

By the way, each time you dismiss Hafey's numbers as compiled by these tests, I can't help but shake my head a little, Peter. You say he's not close on any of them:

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

In a little over 8 years of playing, he's managed to reach nearly 70% of the score required to be an "average Hall of Famer" per the Hall of Fame Monitor Batting Test. He's 66% of the way there on the Hall of Fame Standards Batting Test. He's a way off on the Gray Ink Batting Test, but more seasons hitting .330, and finishing in the top five in slugging like he did every year of his five year peak, will boost that number. And I've already told you what I think of the Black Ink Batting Test--it's useless.

He would only need a few more seasons to reach these metrics.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The JAWS stat takes into account both peak years and career, equally weighted, so it is a very favorable metric to a guy like Hafey who had a short career. The result? 57th best left fielder of all time. And if we use WAR7 alone he moves all the way up to 54th. Oh wait you don't like WAR. I guess you know best, Bill. Perhaps you should write a book and Bill James and the SABRmetricians can move over.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The JAWS stat takes into account both peak years and career, equally weighted, so it is a very favorable metric to a guy like Hafey who had a short career. The result? 57th best left fielder of all time. And if we use WAR7 alone he moves all the way up to 54th. Oh wait you don't like WAR. I guess you know best, Bill. Perhaps you should write a book and Bill James and the SABRmetricians can move over.

It's not that I dislike WAR at all. Firstly, there's no universal formula for it. Secondly, applying WAR to players that were in the Majors 80 years ago is an exercise in futility. Chick Hafey stole 70 bases in his career. There's no record how many times he was caught. What is that? An incomplete statistic.

How are they calculating something like defensive war? How do they determine range factor, or ultimate zone rating? They don't have any spray charts telling them where hitters made their hits and outs. What does all this mean? That the statistics are incomplete and inaccurate.