Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

Thread: Red Schoendist legit Hof ?

  1. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by henrich View Post
    i'm a huge Gil Hodges fan for induction so i'm with jjpm. Would joe tore fit the same category?
    Torre does not fit the comparison because neither his playing career nor his managerial career need a crutch.
    Last edited by dgarza; 12-07-2012 at 06:54 PM.

  2. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Willie is borderline in as a player. As a manager he is not even close. Schoendienst is borderline out for me as a player, but given his relationship to the Cardinals and longevity, I have no problem with his inclusion in the HOF. It'd be a bit hypocritical of me if I did since I see Gil Hodges as a HOFer for similar reasons to Schoendienst.
    Randolph as a manager is not even close. But I don't think Schoendienst as a manager is really close either. Lower level coaching duties and the like should not be taken into account for the National Baseball HOF, IMHO. I don't think there are any rules against it, but it seems like a stretch to me.

    I have no problem with the National Baseball HOF looking at managerial or high executive relationships with team, but anything other than that does not belong in the National Baseball HOF. Other kinds of lower level team relationship should be taken into account for individual team/franchise HOFs only. That's the more proper place for that consideration.
    As far as I know, there is no precedent for a HOFer being elected with lower level team relationship and longevity as a real factor.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    936
    i'm good with that. I think Torre should be in on his own accord as a player.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    mariners country
    Posts
    23,570
    Quote Originally Posted by henrich View Post
    i'm a huge Gil Hodges fan for induction so i'm with jjpm. Would joe torre fit the same category?
    --Torre is more qualified as both a player and
    a manager than either Red or Gil.

  5. #30
    Torre should be in the HOF even if he never managed a single game. Torre should be in the HOF even if he never played a single game. He is one of a handful of people who belongs in both wings of the HOF.

  6. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by jjpm74 View Post
    Torre should be in the HOF even if he never managed a single game. Torre should be in the HOF even if he never played a single game. He is one of a handful of people who belongs in both wings of the HOF.
    I can't think of too many others. Off the top of my head, Clark Griffith maybe.

  7. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    I can't think of too many others. Off the top of my head, Clark Griffith maybe.
    Griffith, Torre and maybe some pioneers of the game like Al Spalding and Monte Ward. That's about it. Torre is pretty unique as the only post integration person associated with the game who has a case for belonging to both wings of the hall.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,315
    Schoendienst was the second best second baseman in the NL in the era of Jackie Robinson. Arguably, he was the best pure SECOND baseman some of that time, as Robinson played entire seasons at 1B and 3B, as well as some outfield. Robinson was a far greater player, but Schoendienst would have been the best 2B in the NL most years, and being the best in the league at your position for a period of years in most times is a reasonable place to start the "Why not?" zone of potential HOFers. He's not the most compelling HOFer, but he's far from a Frankie Frisch Cabal selection, and I would not sanction ripping his plaque out.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    14,660
    Blog Entries
    34
    I ran a project here to see if anyone could get in both ways, and no one made it.

    Rube Foster of the Negro Leagues deserves mention. If we ever get to inducting Japanese players, there would be some additional candidates. Sadaharu Oh, Shigeo Nagashima, and Hiromitsu Ochiai all come to mind.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  10. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Schoendienst was the second best second baseman in the NL in the era of Jackie Robinson. Arguably, he was the best pure SECOND baseman some of that time, as Robinson played entire seasons at 1B and 3B, as well as some outfield. Robinson was a far greater player, but Schoendienst would have been the best 2B in the NL most years, and being the best in the league at your position for a period of years in most times is a reasonable place to start the "Why not?" zone of potential HOFers. He's not the most compelling HOFer, but he's far from a Frankie Frisch Cabal selection, and I would not sanction ripping his plaque out.
    Well, the Robinson-era was only 10 years, so being the 2nd best 2B (and clearly not #1) in the NL in just 10 years is just an OK place to start (this could mean you are only the 4th best 2B over all, both leagues). But I don't think we should just assume Red was the 2nd best NL 2B of the time, or even the 40s-50s. I think both Schoendiesnt and Eddie Stanky are equally 2nd best, and Stanky may have the better peak. So I don't think this "2nd best" argument is made any stronger.

    The difference between the two is that Schoendienst had longevity. Stanky also played until he was older (37), but he got such a late start in the game, which keeps him out of HOF considerations (made majors age 27).

  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northern plains
    Posts
    3,682
    Quote Originally Posted by keystone View Post
    By today's standards, do you mean the availability of sabermetrics? That would be a valid argument, but it doesn't measure heart. As for Musial, he's the Really Big Star, but as for "being there," Red's the Really Big Heart.
    Exactly
    I know that this a discussion forum and that's what we do, but the constant rewriting one's career, based on "today's standards" is really cheesy, IMO. It's kind of demeaning to the people who watched him play, to dismiss him base on our "new knowledge." By all accounts , Red was an allstar 2B (10X), a team leader, and a championship player. And I think that a .281 hitting 2B, with the rest of his resume, is a pretty good selection.

    ........ but like most of us, I WASN'T around for his career.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Well, the Robinson-era was only 10 years, so being the 2nd best 2B (and clearly not #1) in the NL in just 10 years is just an OK place to start (this could mean you are only the 4th best 2B over all, both leagues). But I don't think we should just assume Red was the 2nd best NL 2B of the time, or even the 40s-50s. I think both Schoendiesnt and Eddie Stanky are equally 2nd best, and Stanky may have the better peak. So I don't think this "2nd best" argument is made any stronger.

    The difference between the two is that Schoendienst had longevity. Stanky also played until he was older (37), but he got such a late start in the game, which keeps him out of HOF considerations (made majors age 27).
    Can't agree with rating Stanky on a par with Schoendienst. His short-term offensive peak was better, but his short career, coupled with Schoendienst's defensive superiority, put Red clearly ahead. Stanky has a case based on OBP, but it begs the question of why it took Stanky so long to reach the major leagues.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

  13. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Can't agree with rating Stanky on a par with Schoendienst. His short-term offensive peak was better, but his short career, coupled with Schoendienst's defensive superiority, put Red clearly ahead. Stanky has a case based on OBP, but it begs the question of why it took Stanky so long to reach the major leagues.
    Argeed career wise, but I was only referring your Robinson-era comment. From 1947-1956, Red and Eddie were the same.
    Last edited by dgarza; 12-08-2012 at 10:27 AM.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    14,660
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by JR Hart View Post
    Exactly
    I know that this a discussion forum and that's what we do, but the constant rewriting one's career, based on "today's standards" is really cheesy, IMO. It's kind of demeaning to the people who watched him play, to dismiss him base on our "new knowledge." By all accounts , Red was an allstar 2B (10X), a team leader, and a championship player. And I think that a .281 hitting 2B, with the rest of his resume, is a pretty good selection.

    ........ but like most of us, I WASN'T around for his career.
    The problem with that is simple: it's an excuse to perpetuate ignorance. Now, Schoendienst isn't a bad choice for the HOF based on his entire career in the game, but it wasn't like the writers voted him in. He never got more than 42.6% of their vote, usually in the 30's. So it isn't like the writers who voted on him (and saw him) thought he was definitely a HOFer for his play. It was the VC that put him in, and while they attached the "player" label to him as an inductee, I think they clearly considered the sum of his career. Furthermore, the VC is the most suspect element of HOF selections.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  15. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by jalbright View Post
    The problem with that is simple: it's an excuse to perpetuate ignorance. Now, Schoendienst isn't a bad choice for the HOF based on his entire career in the game, but it wasn't like the writers voted him in. He never got more than 42.6% of their vote, usually in the 30's. So it isn't like the writers who voted on him (and saw him) thought he was definitely a HOFer for his play. It was the VC that put him in, and while they attached the "player" label to him as an inductee, I think they clearly considered the sum of his career. Furthermore, the VC is the most suspect element of HOF selections.
    Question.... It looks like Schoendiest was voted it immediately as he hit the VC ballot. It looked like he fell off the Writers' ballot with strong but not close support, then easily made it via VC just 5-6 years later. It this correct? Has this ever happened before? Is the VC allowed to consider more career elements than the BBWAA is?

    Hall of Fame
    1969 BBWAA (19.1%)
    1970 BBWAA (32.3%)
    1971 BBWAA (34.2%)
    1972 BBWAA (26.3%)
    1973 BBWAA (25.3%)
    1974 BBWAA (30.1%)
    1975 BBWAA (26.0%)
    1976 BBWAA (33.2%)
    1977 BBWAA (27.4%)
    1978 BBWAA (34.3%)
    1979 BBWAA (36.8%)
    1980 BBWAA (42.6%)
    1981 BBWAA (41.4%)
    1982 BBWAA (32.5%)
    1983 BBWAA (39.0%)
    1989 Veterans (inducted)
    Selected to HOF in 1989
    by Veteran's Committee
    Last edited by dgarza; 12-08-2012 at 11:55 AM.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Question.... It looks like Schoendiest was voted it immediately as he hit the VC ballot. It looked like he fell off the Writers' ballot with strong but not close support, then easily made it via VC just 5-6 years later. It this correct? Has this ever happened before? Is the VC allowed to consider more career elements than the BBWAA is?

    Hall of Fame
    1969 BBWAA (19.1%)
    1970 BBWAA (32.3%)
    1971 BBWAA (34.2%)
    1972 BBWAA (26.3%)
    1973 BBWAA (25.3%)
    1974 BBWAA (30.1%)
    1975 BBWAA (26.0%)
    1976 BBWAA (33.2%)
    1977 BBWAA (27.4%)
    1978 BBWAA (34.3%)
    1979 BBWAA (36.8%)
    1980 BBWAA (42.6%)
    1981 BBWAA (41.4%)
    1982 BBWAA (32.5%)
    1983 BBWAA (39.0%)
    1989 Veterans (inducted)
    Selected to HOF in 1989
    by Veteran's Committee
    Not really. It's a different group of voters, and more time has passed when they decide the question. The VC procedures have changed more than the BBWAA procedures. The VC is not currently an easy hurdle to get through. The idea that the VC floods the HOF with questionable picks that were dismissed by the writers is less true today than it was when Schoendienst was inducted.

    Second base is the position where there is a HUGE gray area in who is in the HOF and who isn't. There are a lot of guys better than Schoendienst that are outside the HOF, but there are a number of inferior 2B candidates who are HOFers. I would prefer Grich and Whitaker before Schoendienst, but I would prefer Schoendienst before Evers, Mazeroski. and Lazzeri.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

  17. #42
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Argeed career wise, but I was only referring your Robinson-era comment. From 1947-1956, Red and Eddie were the same.
    I don't see how you can say that. Stanky's last regular season was 1951; he played in only 53 games in 1952 and 17 games in 1953, and then he was done. It was also 1953 when Jackie Robinson stopped being a full-time second baseman; he was a 3B-OF for the rest of his career. From 1953-56, Schoendienst was, indeed, the BEST second baseman in the NL, in reality.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

  18. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    I don't see how you can say that. Stanky's last regular season was 1951; he played in only 53 games in 1952 and 17 games in 1953, and then he was done. It was also 1953 when Jackie Robinson stopped being a full-time second baseman; he was a 3B-OF for the rest of his career. From 1953-56, Schoendienst was, indeed, the BEST second baseman in the NL, in reality.
    1947-1956, NL

    Considering what Stanky accomplished in less games, I see them as at least even.
    Code:
                                                                             
    Rk              Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age    G   PA
    1      Jackie Robinson    58.7  262     81  132 1947 1956 28-37 1382 5804
    2     Red Schoendienst    29.6  -29     61   96 1947 1956 24-33 1432 6276
    3         Eddie Stanky    24.7   74     34  111 1947 1953 31-37  718 3111
    4          Jim Gilliam    15.8   10     39   99 1953 1956 24-27  597 2733
    5          Connie Ryan    10.9  -16     -4   94 1947 1954 27-34  794 3016
    Also, Stanky was also the a Top NL 2B as often as Schoendiest.
    1947
    Code:
                                                                      
    Rk         Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1    Eddie Stanky     3.5   -7     11   86 1947 1947 31-31 146 679
    2     Bill Rigney     2.3   -1     -1   99 1947 1947 29-29 130 597
    3     Connie Ryan     2.3   -4     -2   93 1947 1947 27-27 150 625
    1948
    Code:
                                                                         
    Rk            Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1    Jackie Robinson     5.0   14      5  117 1948 1948 29-29 147 648
    2       Eddie Stanky     3.6   18      4  138 1948 1948 32-32  67 313
    3     Danny Murtaugh     3.1   -2      5   94 1948 1948 30-30 146 579
    1949
    Code:
                                                                          
    Rk             Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1     Jackie Robinson     9.3   48     10  152 1949 1949 30-30 156 704
    2        Eddie Stanky     3.9   18     -8  114 1949 1949 33-33 138 628
    3    Red Schoendienst     3.2   -9      9   87 1949 1949 26-26 151 702
    1950
    Code:
                                                                         
    Rk            Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1       Eddie Stanky     7.8   35     14  130 1950 1950 34-34 152 692
    2    Jackie Robinson     7.1   34     10  139 1950 1950 31-31 144 613
    3     Danny Murtaugh     1.7    1     -2  100 1950 1950 32-32 118 417
    1951
    Code:
                                                                          
    Rk             Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1     Jackie Robinson     9.3   45     16  154 1951 1951 32-32 153 642
    2        Eddie Stanky     5.1   12     10  108 1951 1951 35-35 145 654
    3    Red Schoendienst     3.3   -1      8   98 1951 1951 28-28 135 602
    1952
    Code:
                                                                          
    Rk             Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1     Jackie Robinson     8.1   40      6  149 1952 1952 33-33 149 636
    2    Red Schoendienst     5.1   10      8  113 1952 1952 29-29 152 673
    3         Connie Ryan     3.1   -5      5   93 1952 1952 32-32 154 656
    1953
    Code:
                                                                          
    Rk             Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1    Red Schoendienst     6.2   31      6  135 1953 1953 30-30 146 627
    2         Jim Gilliam     3.8    6      4  105 1953 1953 24-24 151 710
    3       Granny Hamner     3.7   -3     11   97 1953 1953 26-26 154 645
    1954
    Code:
                                                                          
    Rk             Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1    Red Schoendienst     4.5    6     11  107 1954 1954 31-31 148 679
    2       Granny Hamner     4.1    8      7  112 1954 1954 27-27 152 660
    3         Jim Gilliam     2.8   -3      0  100 1954 1954 25-25 146 695
    1955
    Code:
                                                                          
    Rk             Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1         Jim Gilliam     3.3   -5     12   83 1955 1955 26-26 147 627
    2       Johnny Temple     2.5  -10      6   82 1955 1955 27-27 150 684
    3          Gene Baker     2.4  -10     10   89 1955 1955 30-30 154 681
    4    Red Schoendienst     2.4   -8     11   90 1955 1955 32-32 145 615
    1956
    Code:
                                                                        
    Rk           Player WAR/pos Rbat Rfield OPS+ From   To   Age   G  PA
    1       Jim Gilliam     5.9   12     23  108 1956 1956 27-27 153 701
    2    Don Blasingame     3.2  -11     14   82 1956 1956 24-24 150 665
    3        Gene Baker     1.9  -11      8   84 1956 1956 31-31 140 605
    I don't see a big difference really.

  19. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    From 1953-56, Schoendienst was, indeed, the BEST second baseman in the NL, in reality.
    I still don't think Schoendiest wins any thing hands down even given this narrow of window, because now we have to bring in Jim Gilliam.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    14,660
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Bear View Post
    Not really. It's a different group of voters, and more time has passed when they decide the question. The VC procedures have changed more than the BBWAA procedures. The VC is not currently an easy hurdle to get through. The idea that the VC floods the HOF with questionable picks that were dismissed by the writers is less true today than it was when Schoendienst was inducted.
    The worst days of the VC were the stretch from Frisch's becoming a member of the committee in 1967 until somewhere in the 80's or so. While it's been better, it's still a group that doesn't necessarily get the best guys, as can be seen earlier this month in bypassing Bill Dahlen for Deacon White (not that Deacon is bad, but not the best available IMHO).
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

  21. #46
    From 53-56, Gilliam has more war than Red.

    From 45 to 63, I ran a search to determine the best 2b (greater than 50% games played at 2b)

    Red led the ml in 53, and the Nl in 54 and 57. Over the same time span, Gilliam led the ml three times ( as did fox and Robinson). Stanky led ml twice and Nl twice. I might say that Red was arguably the second best Nl 2b during his career, but is that enough to say he's worthy as a player?

    One could probably find many years where the second best player at a certain position just isn't deserving.

  22. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by dgarza View Post
    Question.... It looks like Schoendiest was voted it immediately as he hit the VC ballot. It looked like he fell off the Writers' ballot with strong but not close support, then easily made it via VC just 5-6 years later. It this correct? Has this ever happened before? Is the VC allowed to consider more career elements than the BBWAA is?
    Just to generalize what everyone has already said, I don't think it's possible to overemphasize the importance of the committee's personnel. It's not just the Mephistophilene Frisch manipulating his puppets, it's the makeup of all the committee members, the baggage they bring with them, their sense of their brief, and their mutual relationships and inner politics. That is where I think you will find answers to many puzzling decisions--though maybe not White v Dahlen. I say this from years of experience with awards committees, their compromises, quid-pro-quos, rule benders and fanatics, grudges and alliances--not from direct knowledge of the personnel.

    Another thing to keep in mind about the difference in selections is that the VC choices come after the writers, and the only revise in one direction, towards inclusiveness. They never throw out an unworthy writers' choice. So it's inevitable that their choices are going to be weaker overall, though from time to time they will quarry some hidden gold. They never get to vote on the no-brainers.

  23. #48
    Not to bring this back to people who had both Hall of Fame playing careers and Hall of Fame managing careers, but I'll throw Fred Clarke and Cap Anson out there. Frank Chance's case as a manager is about as good (or maybe better) than his case as a player.
    The Hall of Stats: An alternate Hall of Fame populated by a mathematical formula.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    936
    What do you think of the new veteran's committee format, as opposed to the previous way of doing things?

    I'm a fan of Gilliam over Red. Stanky no love from me. I have Gilliam and Red in different eras than stanky anyway. Red doesn't offend me as a choice, kind of strikes me as luke warm selection. I agree with fuzzy who says he's ahead of mazeroski and evers, but not whitaker and for me Gilliam.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Under the Knickerbocker beer sign at the Polo Grounds
    Posts
    5,315
    Quote Originally Posted by henrich View Post
    What do you think of the new veteran's committee format, as opposed to the previous way of doing things?

    I'm a fan of Gilliam over Red. Stanky no love from me. I have Gilliam and Red in different eras than stanky anyway. Red doesn't offend me as a choice, kind of strikes me as luke warm selection. I agree with fuzzy who says he's ahead of mazeroski and evers, but not whitaker and for me Gilliam.
    I guess this thread has opened up the question of whether or not Jim Gilliam is a HOFer. He's not, and he didn't have as quality a career as Schoendienst. He was Gil McDougald Lite, and that's a compliment. Gilliam's 1953-56 years were probably his most valuable, however, and he played mostly 2B during that time, so he was, at the least, pushing Schoendienst for #1 at 2B in the NL.
    "I do not care if half the league strikes. Those who do it will encounter quick retribution. All will be suspended and I don't care if it wrecks the National League for five years. This is the United States of America and one citizen has as much right to play as another. The National League will go down the line with Robinson whatever the consequences. You will find if you go through with your intention that you have been guilty of complete madness."

    NL President Ford Frick, 1947

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •