BBF Progressive HoF Election: 1936

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • DoubleX
    Just a Fool
    • Feb 2004
    • 11318

    #16
    Originally posted by SavoyBG View Post
    Didn't have much of a peak. Despite playing 19 seasons he only had 5307 career at bats, partially because he walked a lot, but more because he only caught 100 games 5 times in his career, with 167 games in the OF and 60 games at 3B (mainly in 1915).
    Just out of curiosity, but how many full time catchers to this point have had more plate appearances than Schang's 6423? Here are the PA and games caught total of some notable catchers as of 1936 (this list isn't meant to be all-inclusive, just who sprang to mind, so I could be forgetting someone):

    Plate Appearances
    1) McGuire: 6932
    2) Schang: 6423
    3) Farrell: 6254
    4) Schalk: 6217
    5) Hartnett: 5950
    6) O'Connor: 5780
    7) Robinson: 5419
    8) Bresnahan: 5374
    9) Ruel: 5292
    10) Zimmer: 5076
    11) O'Farrell: 4792
    12) Severeid: 4787
    13) Peitz: 4635
    14) Kling: 4640
    15) Wingo: 4372
    16) Bennett: 4310
    17) Warner: 3824
    18) Dickey: 3799
    19) Snyder: 3737
    20) Ferrell: 3615
    21) Meyers: 3226
    22) Gowdy: 3143

    Games Caught
    1) Schalk: 1727
    2) McGuire: 1611
    3) Cochrane: 1451
    4) Hartnett: 1465
    5) Schang: 1435
    6) Ruel: 1410
    7) O'Farrell: 1338
    8) Robinson: 1316
    9) Zimmer: 1239
    10) Wingo: 1233
    11) Severeid: 1225
    12) Kling: 1168
    13) Warner: 1032
    14) Bresnahan: 974
    15) Peitz: 960
    16) Bennett: 954
    17) Dickey: 923
    18) Meyers: 911
    19) Gowdy: 893
    20) Ferrell: 891
    21) Snyder: 877
    22) O'Connor: 860

    Schang would appear to be about as durable as any catcher has been to this point in the game's history. Further, his 117 OPS+, over what was a long career for a catcher, is a good chunk ahead of most every other catcher who played prior to the Hartnett/Cochrane/Dickey trio. Catchers would typically struggle just to get an OPS+ that approached 100 for a season, let alone for an entire career, and Schang put up 117 in what has to date been one of the longest careers for a catcher. I think he's done enough.

    I also think the Win Shares feat you mentioned is very much in Schang's favor. Considering catchers typically have short careers to this point in history, to make the first and second Win Shares All Star teams in two different decades is a pretty impressive accomplishment.

    I think you might be viewing Schang too much with 2009 eyes (given that you said "It would be nice to find an overlooked hall of famer here," implying that he's been overlooked by Cooperstown). By our standards and the history of the game through 1936, Schang would appear, IMO, to be a worthy choice.
    Last edited by DoubleX; 01-22-2009, 09:51 PM.

    Comment

    • SavoyBG
      Registered User
      • Jan 2000
      • 10931

      #17
      Originally posted by DoubleX View Post
      Just out of curiosity, but how many full time catchers to this point have had more plate appearances than Schang's 6423? Here are the PA and games caught total of some notable catchers as of 1936 (this list isn't meant to be all-inclusive, just who sprang to mind, so I could be forgetting someone):

      Plate Appearances
      1) McGuire: 6932
      2) Schang: 6423
      3) Farrell: 6254
      4) Schalk: 6217
      5) Hartnett: 5950
      6) O'Connor: 5780
      7) Robinson: 5419
      8) Bresnahan: 5374
      9) Ruel: 5292
      10) Zimmer: 5076
      11) O'Farrell: 4792
      12) Severeid: 4787
      13) Peitz: 4635
      14) Kling: 4640
      15) Wingo: 4372
      16) Bennett: 4310
      17) Warner: 3824
      18) Dickey: 3799
      19) Snyder: 3737
      20) Ferrell: 3615
      21) Meyers: 3226
      22) Gowdy: 3143

      Games Caught
      1) Schalk: 1727
      2) McGuire: 1611
      3) Cochrane: 1451
      4) Hartnett: 1465
      5) Schang: 1435
      6) Ruel: 1410
      7) O'Farrell: 1338
      8) Robinson: 1316
      9) Zimmer: 1239
      10) Wingo: 1233
      11) Severeid: 1225
      12) Kling: 1168
      13) Warner: 1032
      14) Bresnahan: 974
      15) Peitz: 960
      16) Bennett: 954
      17) Dickey: 923
      18) Meyers: 911
      19) Gowdy: 893
      20) Ferrell: 891
      21) Snyder: 877
      22) O'Connor: 860

      Schang would appear to be about as durable as any catcher has been to this point in the game's history.

      I think you might be viewing Schang too much with 2009 eyes (given that you said "It would be nice to find an overlooked hall of famer here," implying that he's been overlooked by Cooperstown). By our standards and the history of the game through 1936, Schang would appear, IMO, to be a worthy choice.
      My bad, sorry about the "overlooked" comment. Hard to always keep that in mind.

      I must dispute you categorizing him as "durable as any catcher has been to this point in the game's history."

      His "longevity" was great, but his "durability" was not so great. He only caught 100 games 5 times in any season, while Schalk did that 12 times, 11 of them over 120 games. Ruel caught 100 games in a season 8 times in a row. In his short career Chief Meyers caught over 100 games in 5 consecutive seasons. Schang only caught over 120 games one time.

      To me "durability" means playing a lot within each season. Hartnett has already caught 100 games ten times. Cochrane has done it in all 11 of his seasons to date.
      Last edited by SavoyBG; 01-23-2009, 07:37 AM.

      Comment

      • mwiggins
        Registered User
        • Sep 2006
        • 6255

        #18
        Groh
        Leach
        Youngs
        Schang

        Comment

        • Brooklyn
          Registered User
          • Jan 2000
          • 2590

          #19
          Blank Ballot. I'm closest on Groh, but his career and peak were too short for me

          Comment

          • jjpm74
            • Jan 2008
            • 19327

            #20
            Originally posted by Brooklyn View Post
            Blank Ballot. I'm closest on Groh, but his career and peak were too short for me
            Please elaborate on this as Groh's career was not short.

            Comment

            • Ubiquitous
              stats moderator
              • Aug 2005
              • 14302

              #21
              I'd say only 12 seasons that are anything close to a full season is pretty short. His peak as far all star level players isn't really short. 6 or 7 years of top quality play is pretty good for most players. Problem is though that he doesn't then have the 10 or so years of average to above average play like most of those all star players have that make them HoF'ers. If you are going to have a short career it probably helps to have a Ralph Kiner like peak.

              Comment

              • Paul Wendt
                Registered User
                • Nov 2007
                • 5679

                #22
                Ralph Kiner?

                Comment

                • mwiggins
                  Registered User
                  • Sep 2006
                  • 6255

                  #23
                  Originally posted by Ubiquitous View Post
                  I'd say only 12 seasons that are anything close to a full season is pretty short. His peak as far all star level players isn't really short. 6 or 7 years of top quality play is pretty good for most players. Problem is though that he doesn't then have the 10 or so years of average to above average play like most of those all star players have that make them HoF'ers. If you are going to have a short career it probably helps to have a Ralph Kiner like peak.
                  I think the argument can be made that his peak, for a 3B as of 1936, was at that level. But the shortness of his full-time career does make him very borderline, for me at least.

                  Comment

                  • bambambaseball
                    Team Veteran
                    • Apr 2008
                    • 532

                    #24
                    Huh? You people who think Groh is borderline, because he had an excellent peak without enough padding, whyd some of you vote for Addie Joss? He had no padding whatsoever and his peak was no more impressive then Heinie Groh. What about Hughie Jennings? Hes in too!

                    Comment

                    • SavoyBG
                      Registered User
                      • Jan 2000
                      • 10931

                      #25
                      Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
                      I think the argument can be made that his peak, for a 3B as of 1936, was at that level. But the shortness of his full-time career does make him very borderline, for me at least.

                      For those who think that Groh was borderline, keep in mind that only two National League teams won the world series in the ten year period from 1915 to 1924 (Reds once, Giants twice), and .....

                      Groh was the captain of both teams !!!



                      Okay, so they had a little help in '19. These things happen

                      Comment

                      • Phish
                        Registered User
                        • Nov 2007
                        • 133

                        #26
                        Groh

                        Out of all those guys on the ballot, he's the only one that really deserves induction.

                        Comment

                        • mwiggins
                          Registered User
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 6255

                          #27
                          Originally posted by bambambaseball View Post
                          Huh? You people who think Groh is borderline, because he had an excellent peak without enough padding, whyd some of you vote for Addie Joss? He had no padding whatsoever and his peak was no more impressive then Heinie Groh. What about Hughie Jennings? Hes in too!
                          He's borderline for me because he wasn't really that dominant. He was a very good hitter and a very good fielder for a good number of years. For a 3B, his hitting was excellent at his peak. But he was only among the very best hitters in the NL for about 3 years. And 3B is an important position, so the fact that he was a very good fielder there counts for a lot.

                          And I would certainly not say that his peak was as impressive as Joss's. It was probably better than Jennings' peak, though.

                          Comment

                          • Brooklyn
                            Registered User
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 2590

                            #28
                            Originally posted by jjpm74 View Post
                            Please elaborate on this as Groh's career was not short.
                            As a couple of poeple already said, Groh only played over 130 games 6 times, 115+ another 5 times and 97 once. No other seasons over 27 games. So he had 11 "full" seasons, and most of them missed a significant amount of time.

                            Comment

                            • leecemark
                              Registered User
                              • Apr 2004
                              • 20010

                              #29
                              Originally posted by mwiggins View Post
                              He's borderline for me because he wasn't really that dominant. He was a very good hitter and a very good fielder for a good number of years. For a 3B, his hitting was excellent at his peak. But he was only among the very best hitters in the NL for about 3 years. And 3B is an important position, so the fact that he was a very good fielder there counts for a lot.

                              And I would certainly not say that his peak was as impressive as Joss's. It was probably better than Jennings' peak, though.
                              --I'd say the opposite. Groh was a greater player at his peak than Joss, but not as great as Jennings. Although Groh's career was not long, it was longer than either of those Hall of Famers.

                              Comment

                              • mwiggins
                                Registered User
                                • Sep 2006
                                • 6255

                                #30
                                Originally posted by leecemark View Post
                                --I'd say the opposite. Groh was a greater player at his peak than Joss, but not as great as Jennings. Although Groh's career was not long, it was longer than either of those Hall of Famers.
                                I could buy that. Either way, Groh deserves to be in and hopefully he will make it this year.

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X