Chick Hafey - HOF...Why?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[packs]

I don't think the Jackie Robinson comparison is relevant. What he did for baseball and America is unmatched by any other single event that has ever occurred on a baseball field.

The Hall of Fame is for great players. It is a recent development that you have to have certain numbers to get in.

[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.

[howard38]

Jackie Robinson didn't need any surge of emotion to win the MVP in 1949. He was arguably the best player in the NL in 1949 w/his only competition coming from Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner (he beat them both in WAR) and his team won the pennant. That is the very definition of an MVP.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by howard38

Jackie Robinson didn't need any surge of emotion to win the MVP in 1949. He was arguably the best player in the NL in 1949 w/his only competition coming from Stan Musial and Ralph Kiner (he beat them both in WAR) and his team won the pennant. That is the very definition of an MVP.

Kiner hit .310 with 54 home runs and 127 RBI. He also walked 117 times, had a .658 SLG, a 1.089 OPS, and an OPS + of 186. He led the NL in HR, RBI, walks, SLG, OPS, OPS +.

Robinson led the NL in batting at .342 and in stolen bases with 37. He only scored 6 more runs than Kiner.

Musial hit .338 with 36 home runs and 123 RBI. He led the NL with 207 hits, 41 doubles, 13 triples, a .438 OBP and 382 total bases. He scored 128 runs, more than Robinson.

Robinson was the best player in the National League? Not in my opinion.

The Dodgers had Campanella, Hodges, Snider and Furillo, and the Dodgers won the pennant. That's why Robinson won the MVP.

I challenge you to name a single player on the Pittsburgh Pirates in 1949 besides Kiner without looking. That's why he finished fourth in the MVP vote.

Same thing with the Cardinals. Name another player on the Cardinals in 1949. You might get a lucky guess. I will tell you this. After Musial's 36 home runs, the second highest home run total on the team was 13.

What's my point? Musial and Kiner carried their teams. Robinson didn't have to.

[the 'stache]

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

Yeah these are always interesting debates, absolutely. And of course I am being a bit of a statistical purist just for the hell of it too. Certainly there are intangibles as well -- I just don't think Hafey has them.

[Harliduck]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

By the way, Peter and everybody else, I just wanted to say I am thoroughly enjoying this exercise. I may be playing a little bit of a contrarian here, but sometimes it's good to challenge the way we look at things.

Cheers!

Hey...I want to thank you for BEING contrarian...it's creating great dialogue and you ALMOST have me convinced he belongs. Given the statistical arguments you have made there is at minimum a justification. I like the comment that no one wants to begrudge a man his honor once he gets in, I certainly agree with that, it still bothers me though that there are quite a few players throughout the years with similar or better careers that will never be considered (and most shouldn't). The cronyism, good ole' boy situation that got him in stinks.


I do like the comment I received in a PM..."throw a Yankee uniform on him and your thread doesn't exist..."

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

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.

I'll straight up go ahead and say, even fairly modern defensive WAR stats are a joke and completely arbitrary.

As a Yankee fan, watching the difference on the entire attitude of the infield defense, when Don Mattingly was playing first base and Jason Giambi playing first base, was like comparing Brooks Robinson to Butch Hobson at 3rd base.

Yet, defensive WAR statistics on Baseball Reference seem to indicate they are fairly similar to each other on the field, and that Mattingly was actually a negative factor as a fielder, despite also being ranked at or near the top in range factor and every other defensive category as a 1st baseman, throughout his career.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

I'll straight up go ahead and say, even fairly modern defensive WAR stats are a joke and completely arbitrary.

As a Yankee fan, watching the difference on the entire attitude of the infield defense, when Don Mattingly was playing first base and Jason Giambi playing first base, was like comparing Brooks Robinson to Butch Hobson at 3rd base.

Yet, defensive WAR statistics on Baseball Reference seem to indicate they are fairly similar to each other on the field, and that Mattingly was actually a negative factor as a fielder, despite also being ranked at or near the top in range factor and every other defensive category as a 1st baseman, throughout his career.

Yeah, Dave. I think that's pretty absurd. If I were looking for a "total package" first baseman in the last thirty years, I'd have a hard time choosing between Keith Hernandez and Don Mattingly. They're certainly the best two defensive first baseman in my lifetime.

Mattingly is a lot like Hafey. While I think Don's highs were a little higher, his career, too, got curtailed by injury. In much the same way illness and poor vision robbed Hafey of his power (he still remained a .300 hitter, though), Mattingly's back robbed him of his power.

I will go to my grave saying that Don Mattingly is one of the best pure hitters I've ever seen. He was Tony Gwynn with power. He and Boggs tussled for a while, but with Boggs, I always felt like he had to work harder. He's a great hitter, but there was always something about Don's swing that was just beautiful. He coiled up like a snake, bent down and forward just a little over the plate, then just exploded.