Bobby Veach

[Cowtipper]

Bobby Veach played 14 years in the majors, from 1912 to 1925. In those 14 years, he collected 2063 hits in 6656 at-bats for a .310 batting average. His "inks" show that he was a pretty impressive player - he has black ink of 22 and grey ink of 170. His black ink of 22 is only five away from that of the average Hall of Famer, and his 170 grey ink is nearly 30 points over the average Hall of Famer's grey ink.

He was often on the top 10 lists in hits, total bases, doubles, triples, at-bats, and RBI. In fact, he led the league in hits, doubles and triples in 1919, and he led the league in RBI in 1915, 1917 and 1918. His 147 career triples are 56th all-time.

Veach had a solid eye at the plate, walking over 200 more times than striking out.

He is statistically similar to two Hall of Famers: Edd Roush and Joe Kelley.

One of the arguments for Veach in the past has been "Veach played alongside a few Hall of Famers in the outfield: Cobb, Crawford, Heilmann, Manush. If his outfield teammates are in the Hall, why not put him in?"

So...should Bobby Veach be in the Hall of Fame?

[jalbright]

Who he played next to is totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Manush was a mistake IMO anyway. He was a fine player, but short of the HOF in my view.

[Chadwick]

If his outfield teammates are in the Hall, why not put him in?"

By that logic, Terry Moore's a Hall-of-Famer because he played with Stan Musial, Joe Medwick and Enos Slaughter.

[Cowtipper]

By that logic, Terry Moore's a Hall-of-Famer because he played with Stan Musial, Joe Medwick and Enos Slaughter.

I do not support that argument. I was just stating that that was one of the arguments that has been used in trying to justify why he should be put in the Hall of Fame.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Veach wouldn't lower the quality of the HOF; he's far from the bottom of the Hall. His selection has some merit. I don't advocate it, but I don't oppose his candidacy, either.

[Chadwick]

I do not support that argument. I was just stating that that was one of the arguments that has been used in trying to justify why he should be put in the Hall of Fame.

And if you're interested in whether or not he actually is worthy, it would benefit the discussion to discard erroneous thinking like that right off the bat. That people have employed that argument in the past does not lend it any legitimacy. Let's try and stick to more constructive thought processes.

[Cowtipper]

And if you're interested in whether or not he actually is worthy, it would benefit the discussion to discard erroneous thinking like that right off the bat. That people have employed that argument in the past does not lend it any legitimacy. Let's try and stick to more constructive thought processes.

No need to give such an attitude sir. It's just one argument that is used, therefore it is worth mentioning...even if it holds no water.

[KCGHOST]

Veach was a fine player but as a corner OFer he is well short of induction.

[MadHatter]

Close, but no cigar.

[soberdennis]

I agree that playing with Crawford and Cobb, et al is not a qualifying argument. But I look at his stats and say yes.

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the arguments for Veach in the past has been "Veach played alongside a few Hall of Famers in the outfield: Cobb, Crawford, Heilmann, Manush. If his outfield teammates are in the Hall, why not put him in?"

So...should Bobby Veach be in the Hall of Fame?

Personally, I think that playing next to Cobb and Crawford hurt Veach; he was overshadowed. Had he been the BEST of the outfield he played on, his chances might have been better.

Of course, if he racked up his stats with the 1920s Giants, Frankie Frisch would have already punched his HOF ticket.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I was thinking of Veach today, so I decided to check some stuff out.

Was Veach better than he has been given credit for? Veach's HOF candidacy is usually dismissed as an attempt to piggy-back him into the HOF on the backs of Cobb and Crawford, and there's some truth to that, but I've revised my assessment of Veach upward a bit.

Veach's career OWP was .654. This isn't stellar for a HOF left fielder, but it's clearly in the gray area. Veach didn't become a regular until age 25, a wee bit old, and I'm not clear as to why this was, so he's missing some time at the beginning of his career.

Veach's playing career did not come to an end after his release from the Senators. From Wikipedia:

After ending his Major League career in 1925, Veach played four seasons with the Toledo Mud Hens of the American Association from 1926-1929. In 1927, a 39-year-old Veach led the Mud Hens (with manager Casey Stengel) to their first American Association crown with a 101-67 record. Veach had a .363 batting average and drove in a league-leading 145 RBIs. The next year, at age 40, Veach hit .382 to capture the 1928 American Association batting crown.[7]

Veach is oft-criticized for having a short career, but his career went on afterward in AAA ball. Remember, this was a time where there were still "free minors"; the Mud Hens were not the vassal team they are now. Veach wasn't just a AAA player, he was, arguably, the MVP (or close to it) of the international league. I don't know about you, but a guy who wins the I. L batting title at age 40 in 1928 has demonstrated decent ability retention.

On that basis, I believe that had Veach stayed in the major leagues though 1928, he could have ended up with over 2,500 hits, and a BA over .300 lifetime. Would THAT have put him in the HOF? I think it would have, yes. Veach's career would have been evaluated by the VC in the sixties, and apart from the issue of the ridiculous Frisch selections, those VCs were impressed by .300 BAs lifetime, mainly because the key offensive events of the sixties centered around declining BAs. (The AL, as a whole, hit .230 in 1968.)

Twenty five hundred hits would have put more distance between Veach and Chick Hafey; it would have put him closer to, say, Sam Rice. We would be perceiving Veach differently now if he had 2,500 career hits to go with the rest of his career. And I have little doubt but that Veach could have accomplished that if he had hooked up with a last place team in the majors, and started for them.

Now, let's look at Veach's decision to play with the Mud Hens after his release from the Senators. Veach was picked up as a spare part on what turned out to be the AL pennant winner. The Senators, however, had a younger HOFer in LF (Goose Goslin), and their least best outfielder, Earl McNeely, played some CF. (The Senators also had HOFer Sam Rice in RF.)

One thing I believe is that players in the twenties put an emphasis on playing with a winning team more than they do now. That's because (A) salaries weren't as great, (B) there was no pension plan, (C) there wasn't as great a difference between the bottom of the majors and the top of the free minors in terms of salary, and (D) World Series or title shares were a bigger part of a player's compensation then they are now (Charlie Silvera syndrome). Moving to the Mud Hens was not a silly option for Veach; he remained a star (in a smaller setting), was part of a winner, and, probably, did almost as well, financially, as he would have if he had been backup at the major league level (or even a regular for a last-place team). Playing in the minors at the end of a player's career was one way guys played out their decline phases in the twenties, more so than today, because of the lesser differences in salary structure. That Veach did so at the level he did indicated that he still had the ability to be a major leaguer; the correlation of major league roster spots to best players occupying them was nowhere near what it is today in the age of minors-as-farm-system only.

I think some reappraisal of Veach is in order. How much credit to give him for his Toledo Mud Hen days, I don't know. But it is clear to me that Veach could have continued his MLB career, and it is clear that the option he chose is little different from a player who can still play in the bigs going to Japan these days. I'm not sure I'd support Veach even now, but (A) I think he'd be in if he had tried to hang on as a regular for a last place team, and (B) I think he demonstrated the kind of ability retention that is compatable with HOF induction. (Don't read more into that last statement then there is.)

[Jar of Flies]

Happy birthday to the guy I rate better than maybe anyone here, a deserving HOF who played elite left field defense in the dead ball age = value of a good centerfielder, adding very good offense to compliment the defensive wizardry. He fell short of the first cut in the recent playoff hall of fame voting and doesn't have the counting stats that traditional or career voters look for, but has a desirable peak/prime. I appreciate everyone's thoughts here, thanks.

Side note, great post by Fuzzy Bear, particularly regarding the minors time. He's a HOF without any credit for me, but the game was so different in that time, he likely would have another 2 quality years in the majors in today's game, but the conditions of the time incentivized a run with a high end minor league.

[Chadwick]

I came around to supporting his induction after reviewing his defense more closely.

[JR Hart]

Here are his top 5 comps

1. Dixie Walker (905.7)
2. Bing Miller (899.9)
3. Ben Chapman (888.1)
4. Gee Walker (886.0)
5. George Burns (885.40)

That's about in the group that I have him. significantly short