Is Charlie Bennett a HOFer?

[cgjackson222]

Always nice to learn a little more about a relatively obscure player.

Are the WAR and other stats you provided just for the years the players played catcher?

And do you happen to have a source for the WAR per 650 plate appearances stat you cite? That is an interesting statistic. I'd like to see the other guys leading the list.

I might include Gene Tenace in the conversation as the most worthy pre-1980 catcher. Yes, he retired in 1983, but most of his good years were in the 70s. Tenace's career OPS+ was 136.
Bill Freehan was pretty solid as well, as he was an 11x All Star with 5 Gold Gloves.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

I voted borderline. He’s not a bad candidate, he might be the best catcher not in the Hall already. A reasonable expansion, but I hardly consider him in the group of folks where it is unjust he isn’t in already.

I don’t think using the stat equations written around the modern game and what is valued now are particularly telling of this very different context he played. They do good with modern players, I do not really buy in that the gigantic quantity of value assumptions and comparison to an imaginary modern replacement player concept that form the root of WAR is much relevant to baseball as it existed in the 19th century. WAR is great for ID’ing overlooked players in 2014, not for 1884 for whom it is not written.

I wouldn’t hold that he only caught 954 games against him very much, due to the time context. I would probably vote for him as a very bottom tier hall of famer if the ballot did not have the most deserving 19th century players.

Thank you for the well thought out response.

The reason I like modern sabermetric statistics with 19th century players is that a lot of their on-field contributions seem quite low when compared to modern players and this is a product of the times (lower amounts of games played per season, etc).

Modern sabermetric statistics are formed using their contemporaries and not modern players so it really gives a good insight as to how they compare to their 19th century peers. Even if we didn't want to go that route, we can see that Bennett had a .942 fielding percentage at catcher to a .909 league average during his playing days, which may be his most impressive state.

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Always nice to learn a little more about a relatively obscure player.

Are the WAR and other stats you provided just for the years the players played catcher?

And do you happen to have a source for the WAR per 650 plate appearances stat you cite? That is an interesting statistic. I'd like to see the other guys leading the list.

I might include Gene Tenace in the conversation as the most worthy pre-1980 catcher. Yes, he retired in 1983, but most of his good years were in the 70s.
Bill Freehan was pretty solid as well, as he was an 11x All Star with 5 Gold Gloves.

The WAR and other stats I provided are for all seasons/games played by those in the graphics (part of my criteria was 80% of games played at the catching position, but this includes everything at every position as long as they made the cut of 80%).

I agree that Gene Tenace and Bill Freehan, as well as my suggestion of Wally Schang are also great catchers to include in that conversation, but overall my money is on Bennett, his defensive stats are on par with Ivan Rodriguez, even though he played in a gloveless and mostly equipment-less era. He was also an extremely popular player in his day who even had a stadium named after him; Bennett Park in Detroit.

As for the WAR per 650 PA's, that was a quote from an article I found that was a bit dated as it was posted 5 years ago. While it was likely correct at the time, the numbers have shifted a bit since, but Bennett is still 38th in WAR per 650 PA's. Here is the data as I've compiled it from Baseball Reference. NOTE: this list is ALL-TIME for all position players

Fun Fact: I capped the list at the first 400 players and sitting at the bottom of those 400 is HOFer Harold Baines (2.27 WAR per 650 PA's), Baines also has the exact same WAR as Bennett (38.8) but has 11092 PA's to Bennett's 4310...

[cgjackson222]

Wow, that's amazing how high Bennett ranks on the WAR per PAA list. Any chance you could provide a link to that? I can't seem to find it on my own.

When I look at Carlton Fisks' WAR on baseball reference, it is 68.5, so I am not sure where the 39.5 in your table is from?

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Wow, that's amazing how high Bennett ranks on the WAR per PAA list. Any chance you could provide a link to that? I can't seem to find it on my own.

When I look at Carlton Fisks' WAR on baseball reference, it is 68.5, so I am not sure where the 39.5 in your table is from?

The WAR per 650 PA is a list I compiled from Baseball Reference exports. I have it in an Excel sheet that I would be happy to email to you, just send me a PM.

As for the 39.5 WAR in the first post for Fisk, that is because part of my criteria for those initial lists was the era from 1871-1980, which is the era that Bennett would be considered for the HOF. Fisk's total was only 39.5 through 1980. I figured the best way to compare Bennett was by using that range since that is who he would compete against for induction.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Thank you for the well thought out response.

The reason I like modern sabermetric statistics with 19th century players is that a lot of their on-field contributions seem quite low when compared to modern players and this is a product of the times (lower amounts of games played per season, etc).

Modern sabermetric statistics are formed using their contemporaries and not modern players so it really gives a good insight as to how they compare to their 19th century peers. Even if we didn't want to go that route, we can see that Bennett had a .942 fielding percentage at catcher to a .909 league average during his playing days, which may be his most impressive state.

To the bold, I didn't say modern sabermetric's compare performance to players a century later instead of contemporaries; but it uses a set of value suppositions rooted in todays game, not the 19th century. There is not a different version of WAR that calculates value based on the way the game was played in a particular year or period, just a couple adjustment factors that exist mostly to punish 19th century pitchers so they don't come out on top. In order to find WAR an accurate account of a players performance, you must accept the value judgements it places on everything and think those reflective of the period in question. I do not think that it does. It's fictional replacement player it compares too is even less real in this period where there wasn't a highly regulated and developed feed system.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by G1911

To the bold, I didn't say modern sabermetric's compare performance to players a century later instead of contemporaries; but it uses a set of value suppositions rooted in todays game, not the 19th century. There is not a different version of WAR that calculates value based on the way the game was played in a particular year or period, just a couple adjustment factors that exist mostly to punish 19th century pitchers so they don't come out on top. In order to find WAR an accurate account of a players performance, you must accept the value judgements it places on everything and think those reflective of the period in question. I do not think that it does. It's fictional replacement player it compares too is even less real in this period where there wasn't a highly regulated and developed feed system.

Ah ok, I misunderstood your reply. I agree in the sense that I don't look at WAR as a defining stat, but I do find it to be a useful tool. An average player in the 19th century is much different than today, but I do feel that Bennett was so far above his competition at catcher that WAR really doesn't matter.
In this case WAR is just one of many tools that I used to determine Bennett's value. Any way you slice it, modern sabermetrics, Top 10 stat finishes, defensive stats, etc, he is a HOFer in my book, and one of the top 3 defensive catchers of all-time.

[rhettyeakley]

I voted Borderline.

You did bring up Wally Schang who was perhaps the best catcher of the 1920’s. He was superior to Ray Schalk in nearly every way. Schang, Hartnett and (later) Cochrane were the best catchers of the era. Schang should be the next catcher inducted imo.

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by rhettyeakley

I voted Borderline.

You did bring up Wally Schang who was perhaps the best catcher of the 1920’s. He was superior to Ray Schalk in nearly every way. Schang, Hartnett and (later) Cochrane were the best catchers of the era. Schang should be the next catcher inducted imo.

I completely understand. Over the course of this research, Schang has consistently came up and is deserving of enshrinement. Schang and Bennett are in similar boats as Schang is possibly the best catcher of the 20's, while Bennet is the best catcher of the 19th century.

The main reason why I give the nod to Bennett is that the playing conditions were much worse in the 19th century, and catchers were borderline insane with no gloves or equipment (for the most part). The sheer toughness of the position and it's lack of 19th century representatives (Ewing only played 47% of the time at Catcher, the most of 19th century HOF inductees, while Bennett played 88%) makes me give the edge to Bennett.

[oldjudge]

Not only was he a great defensive catcher but he was a loved player. He had the Tigers' stadium, Bennett Field, named after him. I voted yes that he should be in the HOF.