T206 Who should be a HOFer that isn't ???

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Addie Joss 160-97, ERA 1.90....HOF
Jack Chesbro 198-132, ERA 2.69...HOF
Rube Waddell 193-143, ERA 2.16....HOF
Ed Reulbach 182-106, ERA 2.24...??

What am I missing?? Oh, I forgot, WAR....

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

[Herpolsheimer]

Hal Chase... It would make T206 collectors the happiest and for his era he was considered to be among the best....

[bravos4evr]

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

Most people that know the game acknowledge the talents of Hal Chase. Yes, like a lot of other players,he was crooked. But he was one the best first baseman of all time, especially defensively.....Not really sure you know Baseball versus stupid ratios....

[Joshchisox08]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

Chase? .291/.319/.391 slash line for his career, .710 OPS, .341 wOBA, 109 wRC+ , career WAR of 26 at first base Hal Chase?

He's not even a top 200 hitter all time at his position!!!


from 1871-1920 he's tied for 45th in hitting at 1b!!!


I know he's a popular player, but by no means is he a HOF'er except in a "pioneers of the game" manner

As another person mentioned in the Kling argument. It's kind of the same case for Chase.

Chase was considered to be the best defense first baseman by many people. Throw that in with pretty solid numbers (for the era) 2,100+ hits. A 17!!!HR season. Close to 1,000 RBI and not too far off .300 average.

I think it's more of his gambling issues that has kept him away from the Hall.

[MartyFromCANADA]

George Gibson and Jimmy Archer.

The hall overlooks catchers. Only Schalk and Bresnahan from the deadball era.
Only 17 catchers all time?

[Topps206]

Originally Posted by MartyFromCANADA

George Gibson and Jimmy Archer.

The hall overlooks catchers. Only Schalk and Bresnahan from the deadball era.
Only 17 catchers all time?

I just looked both of them up and Kling looks like a better candidate by comparison.

If we're talking more recent times, I think Freehan and Simmons have better arguments.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Joshchisox08

As another person mentioned in the Kling argument. It's kind of the same case for Chase.

Chase was considered to be the best defense first baseman by many people. Throw that in with pretty solid numbers (for the era) 2,100+ hits. A 17!!!HR season. Close to 1,000 RBI and not too far off .300 average.

I think it's more of his gambling issues that has kept him away from the Hall.

But if you look past the baseball card stats to his slash line ,defense...etc he is not a HOF'er. .710 OPS might get you in if you are Ozzie Smith or Bill Mazeroski, but a first baseman??? Who isn't even in the top 200 hitting all time at his position? gambling or not his admittance on stats alone would be an abomination.


ETA: let's look at Joe Jackson for what a HOF'er looks like. 11 full seasons, 60.5 WAR, slash line of .356/.423/.517 .940 OPS, wRC+ of 165 (100 is avg) now THAT'S a HOf stat line!

[Topps206]

For anybody who thinks Johnny Kling is a HOF'er, how do you justify someone who isn't top 1000 in career WAR or top 1000 in career OPS+ as an enshrinee?

Also, Kling has a lower JAWS than Ray Schalk. If Kling was one of the best catchers of his era, that's a weak era for catchers, then.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Topps206

For anybody who thinks Johnny Kling is a HOF'er, how do you justify someone who isn't top 1000 in career WAR or top 1000 in career OPS+ as an enshrinee?

Also, Kling has a lower JAWS than Ray Schalk. If Kling was one of the best catchers of his era, that's a weak era for catchers, then.

I'm with you here!

career wRC+ of 100 is dead avg, career WAR of 21.3 over 1260 games is also dead avg. Sure his defense (as all catcher defense is) is probably undervalued a decent bit, it's not so undervalued as to make him even near the HOF.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

Since you have got all the WAR nonsense. Please find me one pitcher that had a higher won-lost percentage than Reulbach (min. 175 wins) that is not in the Hall....Good luck....You need to get off this WAR garbage....Look at the player

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Since you have got all the WAR nonsense. Please find me one pitcher that had a higher won-lost percentage than Reulbach (min. 175 wins) that is not in the Hall....Good luck....You need to get off this WAR garbage....Look at the player

I am looking at the player, and regardless of WAR he would be a borderline player who would make the hall worse not better.

pitcher wins are pretty worthless as a gauge of individual performance

yelling about modern statistics doesn't make them less valid

K/Bb ratio of nearly 1/1 is not good, having an FIP of near avg for his career doesn't help either.

If you want to put Reulbach in, you are going to have to put in about 50 other pitchers who are equally is deserving

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

among other things....


look, it's a FACT that pitcher wins are a bad way to judge production


it's also a FACT that ERA (and it's derivatives) give too much credit to the pitcher for results that are often not of their own doing (defensive plays, unearned runs which are arbitrarily distributed)

it's a fact that K/BB ratio is a good way to judge pitcher production as he has direct control over them. Reulbach's is not very good.

FIP is better, WAR is a good thumbnail to use to compare players by era. It isn't perfect, by WAR Reulbach is right on the cusp of HOF status, but his peripherals don't paint such a rosy picture. I can see why "big hall" people would want him in, but I am a small hall person and think too many borderline and undeserving guys are in already, no need to muddy the waters with more of em.

Those are not facts, those are your opinions. I strongly disagree with them. YOU brought up ERA. I brought up ERA+ which is a much better stat as it adjusts for the park the pitcher was pitching in. Even your crappy WAR uses ERA +.

K/BB ratio is not a good way to judge a pitcher. Weakly hit balls, pop outs, easy flies, double plays are also good ways to judge a pitcher, but are ignored by FIP. FIP treats every hit ball as equal. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows that is not true. Baseball is a game of skill, not luck. Luck factors will average out over a career. Also, one of the main components of FIP are HRs, which aren't even a major issue in the period Reulbach pitched.

The bottom line is the team that allows the fewest runs wins the game. ERA+ is the best measure of that. All of your stats are fine in theory, but in the real world, Reulbach produced a great win loss record by preventing runs. He was a top 10 pitcher in his era and I will take him over all those guys with better FIP, but poor ERA+.

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by rats60

Those are not facts, those are your opinions. I strongly disagree with them. YOU brought up ERA. I brought up ERA+ which is a much better stat as it adjusts for the park the pitcher was pitching in. Even your crappy WAR uses ERA +.

K/BB ratio is not a good way to judge a pitcher. Weakly hit balls, pop outs, easy flies, double plays are also good ways to judge a pitcher, but are ignored by FIP. FIP treats every hit ball as equal. Anyone who has ever watched a baseball game knows that is not true. Baseball is a game of skill, not luck. Luck factors will average out over a career. Also, one of the main components of FIP are HRs, which aren't even a major issue in the period Reulbach pitched.

The bottom line is the team that allows the fewest runs wins the game. ERA+ is the best measure of that. All of your stats are fine in theory, but in the real world, Reulbach produced a great win loss record by preventing runs. He was a top 10 pitcher in his era and I will take him over all those guys with better FIP, but poor ERA+.

Great points, thanks..Also, Kling was a fantastic catcher, closely worth to HOF status IMO...

[Topps206]

I don't get the Kling arguments. If you want to argue a former Cub, Dahlen is first and foremost, though Stan Hack also has a case.

[Herpolsheimer]

I believe that all of the great players have made it to Cooperstown from the early years of the game and now we are only discussing very good players that might get voted in by committees that have only seen today's games. However, there are some omissions like Joe Jackdon that clearly deserve the honor but have been deemed to be ineligible for one reason or another. it seems that Hal Chase may have fallen into this dungeon of despair with Joe Jackson and more recently Pete Rose. While not banned he clearly was highly respected by his peers and perhaps remains one of the few 'special' players from his era not to be in Cooperstown. He may have been loved.... 5 T206 Cards....

[Topps206]

Changing the Hall committees isn't enough. We need actual historians voting for this era, not Hall of Famers from the modern era.

Blyleven said he researched Dahlen and Stovey on Wikipedia.

Boy would I have loved to have been in that meeting last year when they were turned away.

[FourStrikes]

Originally Posted by Topps206

Changing the Hall committees isn't enough. We need actual historians voting for this era, not Hall of Famers from the modern era.

Blyleven said he researched Dahlen and Stovey on Wikipedia.

Boy would I have loved to have been in that meeting last year when they were turned away.

Topps206 = mic drop.

DS