Wes Ferrell vs. Rick Ferrell (Hall of Fame ramblings)

[theoldcoastleague]

One of the ironies of the game is Wes Ferrell was a much better hitter than his brother Rick plus he won 20 games six times yet he has virtually no chance to make the Hall of Fame (okay he had a 4.04 ERA).

Rick is probably one of the three least deserving players in the hall. Lance Parrish may not be hall worthy but he has vastly more credentials than Ferrell.

There are at least 10 starting pitchers more deserving than Jesse Haines not in the hall yet.

One of the most enjoyable things about being a baseball history buff is putting together a list of people who should be in the hall but aren't. My list is probably topped by Lefty O'Doul even more as an ambassador of the game than as a player. When will the hall recognize the man who basically established baseball in Japan?

How can guys like Al Oliver not make it past the first ballot. I think racism plays a factor. (.303 average, 2743 hits, 6 post season appearances).

Sad but true. If Lee Smith were white he'd have made it already. He might never make it now especially with Hoffman due to eclipse his record.

Even pointing out misgivings can be in good nature. I hope it piques some interest.

[538280]

One of the ironies of the game is Wes Ferrell was a much better hitter than his brother Rick plus he won 20 games six times yet he has virtually no chance to make the Hall of Fame (okay he had a 4.04 ERA).

Rick is probably one of the three least deserving players in the hall. Lance Parrish may not be hall worthy but he has vastly more credentials than Ferrell.

The selection of Rick Ferrell to the HOF certainly wasn't very good, and the man doesn't belong but I think his selection has been ridiculed more than it should. Ferrell was a good hitter. HIs 95 career OPS+ for a catcher at that time isn't bad. He wasn't much of a slugger and his contact hitting was only fair, but he did draw a lot of walks for a good OBP. He was a pretty good fielder who had a long career for a catcher at that time. I think I remember reading somewhere that when he retired he was top 5 all time in games caught (could be wrong, though). He doesn't deserve the Hall, but his selection is more like a Manush/Kell selection than a Kelly/Hafey selection.

[abacab]

The HoF has made many mistakes, but I doubt racism has been a part of them. You need to have proof before you make that kind of accusation.

[Chisox]

I for one think Parrish is Hall worthy. I'd probably put him in the top 5 not in.
I-ROD
PIAZZA

Simmons
Torre
Freehan

[Old Mike]

I would highly recommend that you read the new McFarland book on the Ferrells. It is called "The Ferrell Brothers of Baseball." It can be found on either Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

The research in amazing. Wes Ferrell strained his arm in both 1931 and 1933, causing him to adopt a "pitching to the score" strategy for much of his career. His record was also affected by his playing on middle of road teams for managers - Peckinpaugh and Cronin - who overused him. The author makes a strong case that Ferrell - at his peak - was in the same category as Grove, Gomez, Dean or Hubbell as a pitcher. The documentation of Wes' hitting is also first rate.



Though the main focus of the book is on Wes Ferrell, brother Rick appears in a better light than historically remembered. The question that needs to be answered is in regard to how the defensive role of the catcher has changed since the pre-WW II days. The book documents a large number of hand injuries to Ferrell (and Dickey and Cochrane as well) due to the two handed catching style in vogue at the time. The author also shows Ferrell catching 24 innings in a doubleheader (this is certain not to happen with a 21st century catcher). There are quotes from Rick talking about his playing in big stadiums, Sportsman and Griffith, where his attempting to hit homers would have been futile. There are also quotes about his being a line drive hitter and some stats pertaining his his batting average often being in the .320-.340 range at mid-seasons. Coverage is provided about his handling the Senators knuckleball staff and Rick's long time front office tenure with the Tigers. I have much more of an understanding/acceptance of Ferrell's HOF status after reading this book.

[RuthMayBond]

There are at least 10 starting pitchers more deserving than Jesse Haines not in the hall yet.

That's the safest thing you'll ever say

<How can guys like Al Oliver not make it past the first ballot. I think racism plays a factor. (.303 average, 2743 hits, 6 post season appearances).>

He's an interesting case. He's arguably not as good as Wynn, Van Haltren, Jimmy Ryan, Dale Murphy, Fred Lynn, Edd Roush, Butler, and WDavis but he's arguably better than KCuyler, Duffy, Doby, LWaner, and Combs.

<Sad but true. If Lee Smith were white he'd have made it already.>

Gossage IS white, is MORE deserving, and has NOT made it yet

[Freakshow]

The question that needs to be answered is in regard to how the defensive role of the catcher has changed since the pre-WW II days. The book documents a large number of hand injuries to Ferrell (and Dickey and Cochrane as well) due to the two handed catching style in vogue at the time.

IIRC, the hinged catchers mitt had not been invented, so catchers HAD to use the bare hand to trap the ball into the old mitts. So, they had more hand injuries out of necessity, not due to any style preference.

Players with 1500+ games at C, 1871-1957:
1-1918 Al Lopez
2-1806 Rick Ferrell
3-1793 Gabby Hartnett
4-1727 Ray Schalk
5-1708 Bill Dickey
6-1611 Deacon McGuire
7-1562 Luke Sewell
8-1544 Ernie Lombardi
9-1530 Steve O'Neill

That's it, just those nine guys. All had been retired for at least ten years, so obviously WW-II had an effect. Only three were active before 1920 (Schalk, McGuire, O'Neill). The feat has gradually become more common. Hegan joined the club in 1958, Berra in 1959, Lollar in 1962.

[SABR Matt]

Rick Ferrell...I donno...that's pretty questionable even making the argument that his selection isn't every bit as horrible as is commonly thought here. He is by far the lowest ranked player in major league history to be included in the HOF by PCA...that includes some other questionable catching choices like Buck Ewing (sorry again, Bill...but you gotta admit...his preak was very short due to injury)

[RuthMayBond]

Rick Ferrell...I donno...that's pretty questionable even making the argument that his selection isn't every bit as horrible as is commonly thought here. He is by far the lowest ranked player in major league history to be included in the HOF by PCA...that includes some other questionable catching choices like Buck Ewing (sorry again, Bill...but you gotta admit...his preak was very short due to injury)

Funny, one guy thinks Ewing is about the third best player ever, another says it's questionable to even allow him in the Hall

[SABR Matt]

difference of perspective on what merits HOF consideration. Ewing was a very talented player...but, he really only had what could legitimately be considered a great year two or three times.

[RuthMayBond]

IIRC, the hinged catchers mitt had not been invented, so catchers HAD to use the bare hand to trap the ball into the old mitts. So, they had more hand injuries out of necessity, not due to any style preference.

Players with 1500+ games at C, 1871-1957:
1-1918 Al Lopez
2-1806 Rick Ferrell
3-1793 Gabby Hartnett
4-1727 Ray Schalk
5-1708 Bill Dickey
6-1611 Deacon McGuire
7-1562 Luke Sewell
8-1544 Ernie Lombardi
9-1530 Steve O'Neill

That's it, just those nine guys. All had been retired for at least ten years, so obviously WW-II had an effect. Only three were active before 1920 (Schalk, McGuire, O'Neill). The feat has gradually become more common. Hegan joined the club in 1958, Berra in 1959, Lollar in 1962.

Freehan, Porter, Santiago, Fisk, Ausmus, Sundberg, Parrish, Boone, Pena, Carter, Bench, IRod, probably others

[KCGHOST]

The HoF has made many mistakes, but I doubt racism has been a part of them. You need to have proof before you make that kind of accusation.

I agree. The early mentioned comment ignores that Al Oliver ranks well behind a number of OFers (both white and black) who are not in the HoF.

A number of people have real problems with Lee Smith in the HoF. His biggest claim is he somehow got thrown into the one-inning closer mode very early in his career and stayed healthy enough to rack up some impressive counting numbers. His quality numbers are decent. All things said he wasn't any better than Quisenberry and certainly isn't in the same category as Gossage.

[csh19792001]

One of the ironies of the game is Wes Ferrell was a much better hitter than his brother Rick plus he won 20 games six times yet he has virtually no chance to make the Hall of Fame (okay he had a 4.04 ERA).

Even pointing out misgivings can be in good nature. I hope it piques some interest.

One of our members here "WJackman" has done extensive research (and I believe helped in authoring the Ferrell brothers bio). He's the only member here known to me that has actively campaigned for Wes, and his insights convinced me- Ferrell is one of the most underrated pitchers in baseball history, and what's more is that he was at least as great as Lefty Grove during the 1929-36 timeframe (which encompassed Grove's best years).

Why?

1. Lefty Grove from 1929-1931 pitched:

140.2 innings against Boston.
140.1 innings against Cleveland.
138.2 innings against Detroit.
125.2 innings against Washington.
124.1 innings against Chicago.
104.1 innings against St. Louis.

and

72 innings versus the New York Yankees.


And over that same period,

Wes Ferrell pitched:

139.0 innngs against Philadelphia.
121.1 innings against Detroit.
117.1 innings against St. Louis.
113 innings against Washington.
112.1 innings against New York.
111 innings against Chicago.
100.2 innings against Boston.

(all dependent of course if I added correctly)

So the guy on the strongest team (Grove) pitches his heaviest workload against the worst team in the league and his lightest load against the strongest team.

And the other guy (Ferrell - on a middle of the pack team) pitches his heaviest load against the best team in baseball, and his lightest load against the worst.

2. Here is Grove in 1935 and 1936:

1. 2.61 ERA in 100.0 innings vs Detroit.
2. 3.18 ERA in 87.2 innings vs Cleveland.
3. 2.39 ERA in 86.2 innings vs NY.
4. 2.59 ERA in 76.1 innings vs Washington.
5. 2.14 ERA in 75.2 innings vs Philadelphia.
6. 2.11 ERA in 59.2 innings vs Chicago.
7. 5.13 ERA in 40.1 innings vs StL.

I have no idea how often this holds true, but I would imagine throughout history pitchers who played on the best teams in the league had several advantages over the pitchers on middle-of-the-pack teams. (Besides the obvious ones like better run support and defensive support.)

In the 1929-31 years, Mack could -- for whatever the reason -- pick and chose spots for Grove. On the other hand, Cronin had to rely on Grove to face the better teams -- Detroit and NY -- more often in order to make up ground in the standings.

A guy like Wes Ferrell -- always on a middle of the road team -- was more often at this disadvantage than Grove, Gomez, Hubbell or Dean. A desperate manager is more likely to hurl his ace against a better team, maybe even on short rest.

While Ferrell worked a higher percentage of his innings against weaker teams in '35 and '36 than Grove, it was because he pitched about 50 more innings each season. He didn't pitch any less against NY or Detroit than Grove did, but did work harder against the lesser teams.

      Grove   Ferrell  Most valuable pitcher (1,2,3) in majors
1929    7.9     8.9  Marberry, Lucas, Hudlin
1930   12.4    12.0  Grove, Ferrell, Stewart
1931   11.9    11.5  Grove, Ferrell, Benge
1932   11.7     9.7  Grove, Hubbell, Warneke
1933    9.6     6.6  Hubbell, Warneke, Schumacher
1934     .8     6.5  Dean, Davis, Hubbell
1935   11.3    14.1  Ferrell, Grove, Dean
1936   12.2    10.7  Hubbell, Grove, Ferrell
      -----   -----
29-36  77.8    80.0

For those interested in Ferrell, the rest of the discussion is in the thread below, starting on page 2. Also check out the rest of Jackman's posts here (scant few), and (of course) the Ferrell brothers bio.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...073#post365073

[Freakshow]

Freehan, Porter, Santiago, Fisk, Ausmus, Sundberg, Parrish, Boone, Pena, Carter, Bench, IRod, probably others

The site I found shows 27 catchers in the 1500 games club:

1-Fisk Carlton        	2226
2-Boone Bob         	2225
3-Carter Gary        	2056
4-Pena Tony         	1950
5-Sundberg Jim      	1927
6-Lopez Al            	1918
7-Santiago B. ****	1917
8-Parrish Lance     	1818
9-Rodriguez I. ****	1811
10-Ferrell Rick       	1806
11-Hartnett Gabby 	1793
12-Simmons Ted    	1771
13-Bench Johnny   	1742
14-Schalk Ray       	1727
15-Dickey Bill        	1708
16-Berra Yogi        	1699
17-Dempsey Rick   	1633
18-Hegan Jim        	1629
19-McGuire Deacon	1611
20-Freehan Bill      	1581
21-Lollar Sherm     	1571
22-Sewell Luke      	1562
23-Ausmus Brad****	1558
24-Lombardi Ernie  	1544
25-O'Neil Steve     	1532
26-Piazza Mike ****	1530
27-Porter Darrell    	1506

[RuthMayBond]

The site I found shows 27 catchers in the 1500 games club:

17-Dempsey Rick   	1633

Geez, probably about the 20th best defensive catcher so far, and I didn't have him on my list

[538280]

difference of perspective on what merits HOF consideration. Ewing was a very talented player...but, he really only had what could legitimately be considered a great year two or three times.

Matt, I've agreed with you and your PCA system on most things (in fact almost everything. It's helped me dozens of times), but I can't help but think you're dead wrong here. Your PCA system may show Buck as not being all that great, but have you made any adjustments to it to encompass the hardships of catching on the body, especially in the 19th century?

Ewing will never look so great by standard sabermetrics because it's double jeopardy, not only were the schedules in his time short but catching then was like hell personified. Ewing didn't catch or play many games, but neither did any other catchers of the period, and no other catcher, and I mean none could compete with Buck in the batter's box.

Bill James talks a bit in his Win Shares book about how many of the worst MVP selections of all time by his system were from catchers. Guys like Ernie Lombardi and Thurman Munson when they won the award. The only catcher to earn the award by his system was Johnny Bench in 1970, which was by the time catching was made way easier by modern technology.

I think catchers in the 19th century will just never look good by sabermetric methods. You have to realize that at the time he retired Ewing was actually 6th all time in games caught. I think Bill in the past has way overstated that, simply because the league was very young at the time and being 6th in anything doesn't mean nearly as much as does today, but you have to realize that in context Ewing was really a durable catcher.

I don't think Ewing was a top 10 player all time certainly (I don't even think he's top 100 or a top 10 catcher), but his spot in the HOF is well deserved.

Same thing with Ferrell. He didn't play many games for the time, and thus I'm sure his totals by season will be low. But, I think you have to realize the effects catching had on the body before new equipment made it much easier.

[SABR Matt]

My ranking method...the one I'm using the claim that Buck Ewing and Rick Ferrell were terrible choices for the HOF) includes a 30% hike in the overall rating for everyone who's primary position was catcher. Any higher and you get 30 catchers in the top 50 players list...it's really comical actually...any lower and catchers disappear out of the top 50 altogether...as is only Fisk and Bench make my top 50 players list so perhaps I need to tweak on a more granular scale than 5% intervals...but I've tried to go out of my way to be fair to catchers.

[csh19792001]

Matt, I've agreed with you and your PCA system on most things (in fact almost everything. It's helped me dozens of times), but I can't help but think you're dead wrong here. Your PCA system may show Buck as not being all that great, but have you made any adjustments to it to encompass the hardships of catching on the body, especially in the 19th century?

Ewing will never look so great by standard sabermetrics because it's double jeopardy, not only were the schedules in his time short but catching then was like hell personified. Ewing didn't catch or play many games, but neither did any other catchers of the period, and no other catcher, and I mean none could compete with Buck in the batter's box.

Bill James talks a bit in his Win Shares book about how many of the worst MVP selections of all time by his system were from catchers. Guys like Ernie Lombardi and Thurman Munson when they won the award. The only catcher to earn the award by his system was Johnny Bench in 1970, which was by the time catching was made way easier by modern technology.

I think catchers in the 19th century will just never look good by sabermetric methods. You have to realize that at the time he retired Ewing was actually 6th all time in games caught. I think Bill in the past has way overstated that, simply because the league was very young at the time and being 6th in anything doesn't mean nearly as much as does today, but you have to realize that in context Ewing was really a durable catcher.

I don't think Ewing was a top 10 player all time certainly (I don't even think he's top 100 or a top 10 catcher), but his spot in the HOF is well deserved.

Same thing with Ferrell. He didn't play many games for the time, and thus I'm sure his totals by season will be low. But, I think you have to realize the effects catching had on the body before new equipment made it much easier.

This is probably the most intelligent post I've ever seen you make here, Chris. Insightful, non-linear thinking. I can't tell you how encouraging it is to see you thinking beyond way beyond the stats and into the embedded context!!

Very nice work.

[RuthMayBond]

My ranking method...the one I'm using the claim that Buck Ewing and Rick Ferrell were terrible choices for the HOF) includes a 30% hike in the overall rating for everyone who's primary position was catcher. Any higher and you get 30 catchers in the top 50 players list...it's really comical actually...any lower and catchers disappear out of the top 50 altogether...as is only Fisk and Bench make my top 50 players list so perhaps I need to tweak on a more granular scale than 5% intervals...but I've tried to go out of my way to be fair to catchers.

It is hard to argue with that. Do you realize we've got Matt and me agreeing, and the two Chrises agreeing?

[theoldcoastleague]

Maybe I should stop picking on Rick Ferrell. I just went through all the catchers from 1910-50 who are not in the hall (I'm sure I missed someone) and the best I found were the unheralded Spud Davis and Walker Cooper. Bubbles Hargrave, Johnny Bassler and Babe Phelps had way too few games and the other guys like Muddy Ruel, Hank Gowdy, Rollie Hemsley, Gus Mancuso, Steve O'Neil, Hank Severeid, Johnny Kling, Frank Pytlak and Frank Hayes were all second tier. It was a very tough position with countless broken fingers (one of which would end a catcher's season nowadays). It just makes all the great catchers really stand out.

As far as my racism theory goes, I stand by it. 2743 hits and a .303 lifetime batting average and to be removed from the ballot after his first year of eligibility is either subliminal racism or damn ignorance. I don't necessarily believe Al Oliver should be in the Hall of Fame but to be bounced off the ballot after his first year of eligibility is a serious slap in the face.

Yes Gossage had 2 inning saves but Smith was flat out dominant for 14 straight seasons whereas Goose maybe 10-11 seasons. Goose was a showman and was brilliant for the game whereas Smith was pretty boring but numbers are numbers and Lee Smith has close to 500 saves compared to Goose's 310.

One guy who has numbers better than several shortstops already in the Hall is Dick Bartell. And what about Joe Gordon, aren't his numbers nearly identical to Bobby Doerr and he left the game in his prime to be a player manager in the Coast League where he put up some monster numbers. Plus he spent two and a half years in the service during WW2.

Don't get me started on players who lost out on Hall of Fame numbers because of time missed due to WW2. (Vernon easily would have had 2800 hits(the magic number until Palmero came along), and Pesky would have redefined offensive output for a shortstop of his era... Cecil Travis etc.. etc..)

Thanks for your interest, your agreements and disagreements.

[runningshoes]

I would highly recommend that you read the new McFarland book on the Ferrells. It is called "The Ferrell Brothers of Baseball." It can be found on either Amazon or Barnes & Noble.

The research in amazing. Wes Ferrell strained his arm in both 1931 and 1933, causing him to adopt a "pitching to the score" strategy for much of his career. His record was also affected by his playing on middle of road teams for managers - Peckinpaugh and Cronin - who overused him. The author makes a strong case that Ferrell - at his peak - was in the same category as Grove, Gomez, Dean or Hubbell as a pitcher. The documentation of Wes' hitting is also first rate.

Most of the Hall critics don't take those things into consideration, Mike.

It's all about the numbers around here. Carrer planning and strategy do not factor into the equation, unfortunately.

[538280]

Maybe I should stop picking on Rick Ferrell. I just went through all the catchers from 1910-50 who are not in the hall (I'm sure I missed someone) and the best I found were the unheralded Spud Davis and Walker Cooper. Bubbles Hargrave, Johnny Bassler and Babe Phelps had way too few games and the other guys like Muddy Ruel, Hank Gowdy, Rollie Hemsley, Gus Mancuso, Steve O'Neil, Hank Severeid, Johnny Kling, Frank Pytlak and Frank Hayes were all second tier. It was a very tough position with countless broken fingers (one of which would end a catcher's season nowadays). It just makes all the great catchers really stand out.

How could you forget Wally Schang? To me, he's clearly the best catcher 1910-1940 not in the Hall. I think he probably belongs too. A good case could be made he's one of the top 10 catchers. He's actually very similar to Ferrell, but a much better hitter.

As far as my racism theory goes, I stand by it. 2743 hits and a .303 lifetime batting average and to be removed from the ballot after his first year of eligibility is either subliminal racism or damn ignorance. I don't necessarily believe Al Oliver should be in the Hall of Fame but to be bounced off the ballot after his first year of eligibility is a serious slap in the face.

No, the writers and the VC have good reason to keep Oliver out. He was a very good contact hitter and had good longevity, but his peak is a bit lacking and he could never take a walk. His power and fielding were nothing great either For a OF/1B his OPS+ of 121 is a bit lacking.

I am kind of surprised Oliver didn't draw more support, though. From what I've read he had a reputation with some people as being the best hitter in baseball in his time, because he always hit the ball hard and made what people call "productive outs". Of course that's crazy, he just didn't get on base very often of have great power, but I still would think enough writers would remember that and vote for him. But claiming racism is the reason he's not getting more votes is crazy.

[RuthMayBond]

Maybe I should stop picking on Rick Ferrell. I just went through all the catchers from 1910-50 who are not in the hall (I'm sure I missed someone) and the best I found were the unheralded Spud Davis and Walker Cooper.

Try Wally Schang, and Sherm Lollar if you wanna stretch the time.

<As far as my racism theory goes, I stand by it. 2743 hits and a .303 lifetime batting average and to be removed from the ballot after his first year of eligibility is either subliminal racism or damn ignorance. I don't necessarily believe Al Oliver should be in the Hall of Fame but to be bounced off the ballot after his first year of eligibility is a serious slap in the face.>

If you're talking off after the first year, I'd say you have a point, probably the ignorance you surmised

<Yes Gossage had 2 inning saves but Smith was flat out dominant for 14 straight seasons whereas Goose maybe 10-11 seasons. Goose was a showman and was brilliant for the game whereas Smith was pretty boring but numbers are numbers and Lee Smith has close to 500 saves compared to Goose's 310.>

Well, Smith was NOT dominant in at least '81, '84, '89, '92, '93, '96 AND '97 so I'm not sure what "14 straight seasons" you're referring to. You also need to take into context how saves have gotten more prevalent. You also might want to know that Gossage's ERA+ wasn't that far behind Smith's but he pitched FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY more innings, otherwise known as not much more than Percival's CAREER

<One guy who has numbers better than several shortstops already in the Hall is Dick Bartell.>

Good call, but Dahlen, Trammell, and TFernandez were probably better

[abacab]

As far as my racism theory goes, I stand by it. 2743 hits and a .303 lifetime batting average and to be removed from the ballot after his first year of eligibility is either subliminal racism or damn ignorance. I don't necessarily believe Al Oliver should be in the Hall of Fame but to be bounced off the ballot after his first year of eligibility is a serious slap in the face.

Far better players (both black and white) than Oliver have been bounced on the first ballot - try Ted Simmons, Darrell Evans, Bobby Grich, Lou Whitaker, Dan Quisenberry, and this year Will Clark.

[leecemark]

--There is no special significance to being bounced on the first year anyway. Either you deserve to be in the Hal of Fame or you don't. People should vote for non-deserving Hall of Famers because they deserve to linger on the ballot?
--I was a fan for all of Al Oliver's career and I don remember anybody talking about him as a Hall of Famer at any point in it. A good player certainly, but hardly a superstar. When he was on the great Pirate teams of the early 70s he was just one of the boys, more a role player than one of the teams stars. After being exiled to Texas he may have been the best player on that team in some years, but that was no great distinction. Wandering around the league in the later third of his career didn't help to give him a Hall of Fame image either.
--He did have a great year in Montreal in 1982, leading the league in BA and RBI (and RC for the more sabr minded readers) and havinging his best best finish in the MVP vote (3rd). If he had that season for a contender or in a higher profile city it probably would have given him the bounce to spend a few year son the ballot, although he wasn't destined to get voted in.