Is Charlie Bennett a HOFer?

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

Before you respond or vote, please take the following into consideration:

Since the HOF committee for 19th century players is now anything pre-1980, here is how Charlie Bennett stacks up. I used the following statistics to show his dominance behind the plate: WAR, dWAR (Defensive WAR), rField (Number of runs better or worse than average for all fielding), WAA (Number of wins a player added to a team above what a league average player would add), and finally a stat showing how his bat was better than some of the numbers might show, OPS+.

NOTE: I used the following criteria to assemble these leaderboards:

1871-1980 - Since this is the HOF Committee Bennett would be put into
Played 80% of games at Catcher
Minimum 1000 games played at Catcher
It's also good to note that Buck Ewing played only 47% of his games at Catcher and King Kelly 36%, while Bennett played 88%

In my opinion, Bennett was the best Catcher of the 19th Century, and even if that were in question, he was clearly the best defensive Catcher of the era and ranks among the best of all time at the position when compared to all eras.

His defensive stats are absolutely incredible and his offensive stats, while on the lower side, are a bit deceiving as his OPS+ is quite high.

In my opinion, Bennett should be the next Catcher elected to the BBHOF from the pre-1980 committee, with the only other player in the argument being Wally Schang.

The 19th Century does not get enough attention, especially Catchers, and electing Bennett would be a slam dunk in my opinion.

It's also good to note that Charlie Bennett, who ranks 34th all time in WAR per 650 PA, his 5.9 being between Larry Walker's 5.88 and Frank Robinson's 5.93. He averaged over 8 WAR per 650 PA over an 8 year peak.

Bennett's career fielding percentage at Catcher is .942 compared to the league average of .909, a whopping 33 points above average!!!

It also doesn't hurt that Bennett was a pioneer of the game, being one of the first catchers to get right behind the batter, and may have been the first to invent/use a chest protector.

In the most grueling era for players, especially catchers, Bennett stands out most among his peers.

I would love to hear why or why not you think Bennett should be in the HOF.

I'll leave you with this excerpt from the excellent book 59 in '84 by Edward Achorn (https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Nine-84.../dp/0061825867):

Detroit’s Charlie Bennett, regarded by many of his contemporaries as the game’s top defensive catcher, entered the 1883 campaign with severely chapped hands—the result, he said, of working too long in frigid air in his off-season job. Unfortunately, when he started catching that spring, his hard hands cracked open, and the cracks, pounded daily by fastballs, refused to mend. Bennett, who had a mother and sisters to support back home in New Castle, Pennsylvania, and could not afford to go without a pay packet, “caught many a game” that season “with blood dripping from his fingers’ ends.” That August, when he could stand the pain no more, he finally sat out and gave his split palms time to heal.

Bennett usually kept on working, though, even in “the most intense agony,” recalled Lon Knight, a teammate for four seasons. In one game, a ball split open Bennett’s thumb from the base to the tip, clear to the bone. A doctor ordered him to sit out until he had healed, warning Bennett that he was liable to contract blood poisoning that might well force the amputation of the thumb, or even his arm. But the catcher stubbornly played on, game after game. “Between each inning he would have to sponge the gash in his thumb with cotton soaked in antiseptic which he carried with him in his pocket, in order to remove the corruption which was continually flowing from the wound,” Knight recalled. Eventually, it healed over, but his hands permanently bore the scars of his trade. The Sporting News surveyed the damage in 1887: “His fingers have been battered almost to pieces . . . until he has not a whole or straight finger in the lot. Every joint is swollen and misshapen.”

You forgot a 4th option…Who the F is Charlie Bennett?

[etsmith]

It's amazing how many people who claim to collect baseball don't seem to know any players from before the 1900's or 1920's.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by etsmith

It's amazing how many people who claim to collect baseball don't seem to know any players from before the 1900's or 1920's.

Then you might be equally shocked to learn that some people come to this site to learn things.

[David W]

I just read the SABR bio on baseball reference.

Definitely changed the way the game was played.

Interesting guy with quite a career.

Borderline but I voted Yes, as his contributions as a pioneer put him over the top

[Rad_Hazard]

Originally Posted by David W

I just read the SABR bio on baseball reference.

Definitely changed the way the game was played.

Interesting guy with quite a career.

Borderline but I voted Yes, as his contributions as a pioneer put him over the top

Great point! I should have linked the SABR bio on the initial post.

SABR Bio - Charlie Bennett - https://sabr.org/bioproj/person/charlie-bennett/

[Rad_Hazard]

I firmly believe that Kid Nichols early success and what paved the way to him becoming the greatest pitcher of the 19th Century was the battery with Bennett during the 1890-1893 seasons.

In Kid's own words:

“When it comes to catchers my preference is, and always has been, Charlie Bennett. Charlie was always consistent and knew what his brain was given to him for. He was also an accurate, quick thrower".

I also found this great article regarding Bennett as well and have taken a couple of paragraphs from it to post here:

https://www.blessyouboys.com/2018/3/...tt-our-catcher

Statistically, it’s a very difficult proposition to judge players from the 1880’s because the rules were in constant flux. But after poring over newspaper accounts of the old Wolverines and taking into account what others said and wrote about Charlie, there is little doubt, that had the baseball Hall of Fame been opened in 1910, Charlie Bennett would have been a founding member.

Charlie was known as an outstanding defensive catcher with a very strong, accurate arm, and an above average hitter with extra-base power. He was also known for his handling of the pitching staff. "I used to feel so sorry for a young pitcher who was being hit hard in a game." said Bennett. I often believe it hurt me fully as much as it did him." Newspaper accounts of the time rated Bennett, along with Hall-of-Famer Buck Ewing as the preeminent catchers of the era, and many rated Charlie the best overall. According to a 1913 Free Press article, "Even to this day where the question arises as to who is, or was the greatest catcher the game ever had, seven out of ten will answer Charlie Bennett."

EDIT: Double Charlie Bennett mailday!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rad_Hazard

I firmly believe that Kid Nichols early success and what paved the way to him becoming the greatest pitcher of the 19th Century was the battery with Bennett during the 1890-1893 seasons.

In Kid's own words:

“When it comes to catchers my preference is, and always has been, Charlie Bennett. Charlie was always consistent and knew what his brain was given to him for. He was also an accurate, quick thrower".

I also found this great article regarding Bennett as well and have taken a couple of paragraphs from it to post here:

https://www.blessyouboys.com/2018/3/...tt-our-catcher

Statistically, it’s a very difficult proposition to judge players from the 1880’s because the rules were in constant flux. But after poring over newspaper accounts of the old Wolverines and taking into account what others said and wrote about Charlie, there is little doubt, that had the baseball Hall of Fame been opened in 1910, Charlie Bennett would have been a founding member.

Charlie was known as an outstanding defensive catcher with a very strong, accurate arm, and an above average hitter with extra-base power. He was also known for his handling of the pitching staff. "I used to feel so sorry for a young pitcher who was being hit hard in a game." said Bennett. I often believe it hurt me fully as much as it did him." Newspaper accounts of the time rated Bennett, along with Hall-of-Famer Buck Ewing as the preeminent catchers of the era, and many rated Charlie the best overall. According to a 1913 Free Press article, "Even to this day where the question arises as to who is, or was the greatest catcher the game ever had, seven out of ten will answer Charlie Bennett."

Jeremy,

Great thread and poll. I voted he should be in by the way.

And I especially found that one comment you posted about how if the HOF had opened in 1910 that he would have likely been a founding member, very interesting, and extremely relevant. It goes to show the modern-day bias element that can, and most definitely still does, exist in many things, and across different eras. The 19th century players have likely been subjected to modern-day bias since they originally announced and first opened the HOF. When you look at the original 1936 HOF class, Wagner is the only player to have even played at least a single MLB game in the 1800s (1897 start to his 21 year career to be exact) yet MLB is considered going back as far as 1869, right? So, no one who primarily played in that first 31 years or so of MLB deserved induction, or is this more because the people voting back then didn't know as much about the older players so they just voted mostly for the newer, more modern (to them) players that they did know? And if so, that is the classic definition of a then, modern-day bias. Remember, back then there was no radio or TV for everyone to have seen these 19th players playing, there was no internet or SABR site where you could just look up player records and stats online, or have easy access to newspaper and other information archives across the country. It wasn't until the fourth HOF induction class was elected, after Landis specifically put together an Old-Timer's Committee in 1939 to look at 19th century players, that they finally recognized and elected a HOF player that actually played the bulk of their career in the 1800s, with the election of both Anson and Ewing that year. I wonder if MLB and the HOF maybe started getting some questions and flak from people about how come they only kept electing the newer players and seemed to completely ignore the 19th century players up till then?

And for those that seem to just love their statistics and can't get enough quoting them over and over, if my math and counting are correct, there have been 25 individuals to date that spent more than half their MLB careers playing in the 1800s that are currently inducted into the baseball HOF as players, not pioneers, executives, managers, or so on, as actual players. And the HOF itself has, last I looked, a total of 268 players inducted into the HOF. So in the entire current 153 years MLB has been in existence, with the 31 years from 1869 to 1899 representing approximately 20.26% of that time, how come only about 9.3% of the current HOFs are from the 1800s?

Today's disparity (2022): 20.26% - 9.3% = 10.96%

Another statistical way to look at this and show the era bias against 19th century players is to just look at the gross number of players in the HOF versus how many years baseball has been around.

268 HOF players / 153 years of baseball existence = 1.75 HOFers per year

Now look at just the 19th century players:

25 19th Century HOF players / 31 years of 19th century play = 0.80 HOFers per year

And maybe even better yet, remove the 19th century players from the formular entirely, and just look at the HOFers from 1900 and on.

243 HOF players / 122 years of baseball existence = 1.99 HOFers per year

Anyone else beginning to see a maybe unfair bias that has been directed at 19th century ballplayers forever it seems? MLB has gone back and tried to correct the bias and so on directed at the Negro Legue players. But still no love for the 19th century guys apparently, huh? Or is that maybe because MLB and the HOF figure that 99+% of today's baseball fans wouldn't know who a 19th century baseball player was, or anything about them and their career, unless maybe their lives depended on it? Instead of this ongoing, veteran's committee type BS where they'll maybe elect another 19th century HOFer every so many years, these guys from the 1800's were done playing well over 100 years ago and none of their numbers or history is ever changing. They should cut the BS, decide what the parameters of a 19th century HOFer are/were, based SOLELY on the context of the era and how the game was played and looked at back then, not with anything at all to do with how the game is even remotely played today, and just put the rest of the deserving players in the HOF.........NOW!

A perfect time to have done this would have been when they finally recognized and put in all the deserving Negro League players as well.

[Fred]

Originally Posted by conor912

You forgot a 4th option…Who the F is Charlie Bennett?

Ok, I'll admit it, I laughed when I read that post.

Another way to look at "who the F is Charlie Bennett" is that out of all the players that could have been selected for the N28 set, he was one of the 10 baseball players. If I didn't collect 19thC stuff, I'd probably be asking the same question about who the F he is.

Edited to add - my thought is he is either borderline or not a HOF caliber player, but these days, who to say who is a HOFer because look at how diluted the talent is in the HOF. Too many "buddies" were inducted by the old veterans committees from the past.

[RCMcKenzie]

I voted, "yes". If you were in N28, you were famous.

[Fred]

Here's a list of N28/N29 (1887/1888) baseball players:

N28
Anson (HOF)
Bennett
Caruthers
Clarkson (HOF)
Comiskey (HOF)
Glasscock
Keefe (HOF)
Kelly (HOF)
Mulvey
Ward (HOF)

N29
Ewing (HOF)
Fogarty
Getzin (Getzien)
Miller
Morrel (Morril)
Ryan

Bennet did make the 1887 N284 cut along with about 140 other players. Missed the almost 100 player list for K-Bats in 1887.
He did make the Scrapps issue because he was on Detroit (Scrapps were Detroit and St. Louis players 1887 NL vs AA championship).

Bennett missed the cut for several other card issues up to 1893.

[bgar3]

While looking something else up, I found a list of the best players by position for each decade that was prepared by Francis Richter for his History and Records of Base Ball., 1914, considered a classic history. He selected Bennett and Ewing as the best catchers for 1880-90. Just interesting.