jake daubert hof

[Chris-Counts]

"Hall of Fame numbers" are, like many things in life, in the eye of the beholder. In the eyes of many baseball fans, like myself, the numbers Jake Daubert posted are worthy of induction into Cooperstown, for the simple reason that he was better than some of the guys who are already inducted (starting with George "Highpockets" Kelly!). As far as I'm concerned, you could put another 100 players in the Hall of Fame and it would be a better place as a result. Other baseball fans believe there are too many players in the Hall of Fame and the standards need to be tightened so only the "best of the best" get in.

As far as I can tell, most of the Hall of Fame debaters here fall somewhere in between these two views. While I do enjoy the debate, I must admit I do get frustrated at times when people insist they know what "Hall of Fame numbers" look like. The simple truth is that numbers from a pitching-rich era (see 1906) and numbers from live-ball era (see 1930) can't be easily compared. Unfortunately, the Hall of Fame voters haven't bothered to study the differences between the eras. That is why Don Drysdale is in the Hall of Fame and Ron Santo isn't ...

As several board members have pointed out in previous Hall of Fame debate threads, Bill James' "Politics of Glory" is the definitive book on the subject ...

[sayhey24]

While I agree wholeheartedly with your point Chris that you can't compare players of different eras without putting their eras into context, it should be noted that Daubert was one of a bunch of very good first basemen from his era. Very good, but not great.
The argument that Daubert should be in because he's better than George Kelly is a very dangerous one, and it's an argument that Bill James absolutely hates. If we put in every player who is better than the worst player in the HOF, there would suddeny be hundreds of new Hall of Famers.

It is an absolute shame that Ron Santo is not in the Hall of Fame, and so sad that when he is finally inducted it will be posthumously.

Greg

[rhettyeakley]

I disagree when it comes to Daubert. He should be a HOFer without question. He was perhaps the best at his position and was regarded as such during his career. Also, the number one thing about Daubert that puts him over top and into the HOF for me is the fact that he stopped playing in 1924, not because his skills deteriorated (like in most players' careers) but because the dude DIED. He wasn't done yet and had it not been for seriously unfortunate complications from an appendectomy there is no doubt in my mind he is a HOFer (if he doesn't die)--However, I think he is a HOFer despite the fact that he died in 1924 and had a shorter career than he would have, but with a few more years of playing he is in (no question). Personally, I would rather see Daubert in the Hall than Ron Santo, but that is just my opinion.
-Rhett

[esd10]

daubert was one of the greats of the era and also what he did for the players of that time it was revolutionary and the start of the player union. I know everyone hates the player union today but back then they needed it.I think that's why he was not elected into the hof and that's sad for a player to do as well as he did in a era dominated by pitching.

[esd10]

well the hof inducted addie joss for what he might have done after his death. Im not saying addie joss wasnt great but he wasnt in baseball long enough for him to be in the hof but he's there.

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by esd10

*snip* I know everyone hates the player union today...

And the Owners, for that matter.

[3-2-count]

Daubert should no doubt be in the HOF in my opinion.
Here's to you Big Jake. Cheers......

[sayhey24]

Let me begin by saying there are few things more fun than Hall of Fame arguments.

As for Jake Daubert's unfortunate early death -- he was 40 years old when he died -- his career was probably not going to last much longer.

Again, Jake Daubert was very good -- much like Stuffy McInnis and Ed Konetchy from his era, much like Mark Grace and Will Clark from a more recent era. He was not as good as Keith Hernandez. All those names I just mentioned are simply not Hall of Fame caliber (although I would argue that maybe Hernandez is).

Bill James, mentioned before as the definitive source on this, ranks Daubert as the 61st best first baseman of all time. Among those ahead of him -- Hernandez, Clark, Konetchy, Joe Judge, Boog Powell, Cecil Cooper, Wally Joyner, Gil Hodges, Ted Klu, Bill White, John Mayberry, Ron Fairly, Steve Garvey, Norm Cash, Dic Allen and Mickey Vernon. I'm not saying they are all better than Daubert, but some of them certainly are. All told James says 60 first basemen are better than Daubert.

If you're looking for someone who's career was actually ended in it's prime and who deserves HOF consideration, it would be Cecil Travis. A great hitting shortstop, underrated in part because he played for the woeful Senators -- his military service in WWII cut short what may have been a 3,000 hit career. In the 1941 season of Dimaggio's streak and Williams' triple crown, it was Travis who led the American League in hits. It's impossible to say what might have been, but shouldn't a player who had the credentials that Travis did be given a lot of credit for what he lost serving his nation as part of our Greatest Generation?

Greg

[mr2686]

I must agree that HOF arguments are a lot of fun...and frustrating all at the same time.
Let's face it, there are multiple camps on the subject:
1. Sheer numbers that the player puts up...this can work for or against (if the player sticks around too long to gain a magic number, it's points against him).
2. Dominant player at his position for an era
3. Numbers he put up in a shortened career (what he would have done).
4. He's better than player X already in the Hall.

I haven't seen too many people that veered from their opinion on what the HOF criteria should be...and maybe that's why the hof veterans committee has tinkered so much with how the voting process is and who votes. It's the only way that any of these more modern players would ever vote for older players (and for that matter, not many management hof'ers would vote for labor leaders like Marvin Miller, which is what the problem is right now).
At 50, I'm not going to be able to convince someone 35 and younger that there are certain players I watched in the late 60's or early-mid 70's that were dominate at their position and deserve to get in to the Hall. They would just look at the overall numbers or go to a Bill James reference to prove I'm wrong. The overall problem is that everyone buys in to the baseball myth that you can compare players from the past and present, but lets face it, the only thing the same is the distance between the mound and the plate, and the distance between the bases. Rules have been tweaked to raise/lower the mound, outlaw spit-balls, outlaw performance enhancing drugs, etc. You can't compare Hernandez to Daubert...heck, you can't compare any firstbaseman today with anyone in the 90's or early 2000's due to steroids. Players in the 60's and 70's were given "greenies" by the handsfull, and who knows what the olden-day players took.
Anyway, I don't believe it waters down the hall to put players in that were dominate at their position during any one era.