Carl Furillo

[Cowtipper]

Carl Furillo hit .299 with 1910 hits in 15 years in the big leagues. Spending his entire career with the Dodgers, Furillo was a two time All-Star and he appeared in seven World Series. In 1953, he led the league in batting average with a .344 mark, and in 1951 he led the league in at-bats with 667. He had a great eye at the plate, never striking out more than 43 times in a season.

Furillo is statistically similar to one Hall of Famer: George Kelly.

He received votes for the Hall of Fame five times.

So, should Carl Furillo be in the Hall of Fame?

[Paul Wendt]

George Kelly put up batting statistics similar to some very good players including Bob Watson, Bill White, and Tony Oliva.
He compiled his in the Roaring '20s and they compiled theirs in the 1960s, the second deadball era.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Furillo was a short-career guy with not a good explanation for his short career.

Tony Oliva was a FAR better player. Bobby Abreu has had a better career. If Furillo weren't one of the "Boys of Summer" we wouldn't be talking about him.

[KCGHOST]

As a native Brooklynite I loved Carl Furillo lunch pail work ethic toward the game., But he was not an HoFer except in our hearts.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Revisiting Furillo's case, he really doesn't have the kind of kind of case that a number of guys with borderline cases have. He's nowhere near Dwight Evans, who had a super arm and glove in RF, as well as much more plate discipline and power. He's nowhere near his teammate Hodges, or even his teammate Newcombe. He was Woodling and Bauer rolled into one, which made him more valuable, as he was not a platoon player.

The enshrinement of Furillo would render the Boys of Summer Dodgers as the most over-honored team in history in terms of the HOF. It would be hard for me to think of a team that were more over-honored than the Dodgers if Furillo were in the HOF, because it would almost certainly mean that Hodges was thre as well, making 6 Boys of Summer in the HOF. That would be a bit much, IMO.

[BigRon]

I don't think anyone really considers Furillo to be a HOFer. That said, he was a very good player for a lot of years. Hard line drive hitter, enough home run pop to be dangerous. He didn't take a lot of walks, but usually hitting in the second half of the lineup he often had guys on in front of him- swinging the bat a lot actually may have increased his value. He wasn't fast but he was a good gloveman and had a legendary arm. He probably lost a couple of years at the front end of his career due to WW2, and that didn't help his counting numbers.

[leewileyfan]

Dwight Evans' arm was no better than Furillo's during furillo's peak. Furillo also played CF which might lend extra appreciation for his overall defensice ability. Despite these strngths, Furillo falls under the radar for HoF enshrinement.

[TomBodet]

My fave of those teams. Not a Hof but solid.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I decided to take a 2nd look at Furillo. I didn't think I'd change my "no" to his HOF viability, but I was thinking it would be good to consider him without the Brooklyn Dodger thing. I recognize I'm not inclined to over-honor The Boys of Summer, and that's an admitted negative bias of mine.

Furillo missed 3 years to military service, which is a lot. He was MLB ready in 1946 when he came back, indicating he was probably ready before that, or would have been under normal circumstances. He was a Grade A-minus prospect at age 20, as he was hitting .281 in AA after tearing up the low minors at ages 18 and 19. It's not that Furillo was a future superstar in 1942, but he was a good enough prospect to where a scout could conclude that Furillo was likely to play in the major leagues with a normal learning curve and had a good chance to be a regular. He could also play CF in those days.

Had there been no WWII, Furillo would have been a major leaguer in 1945 (definitely) and, quite possibly, in 1944. Under those circumstances, he may have posted better career totals, and he may have kept his BA over .300. Had he done so, he'd have looked attractive to the voters in the late 1960s and early 1970s who saw the AL as a whole hit .230 in 1968 and almost saw a batting champ hit under .300.

Furillo was a guy who was hurt by being a Dodger; he was in the background while Snider, Robinson, Newcombe, Reese, Hodges, and Campanella got the headlines. And they should have; they were better players. I do think that if Furillo had been a regular for the Red Sox or the Cubs, or even the Reds, and there had been no war, he may have retired with a BA over .300 and with a bit more power. He may have stayed in CF. He would have been a controversial selection, but he MAY have made the HOF had he played for another team.

[dwj21792]

He would have been a controversial selection, but he MAY have made the HOF had he played for another team.

I understand what you are saying. But should that really make a difference? Whether he was a Dodger, Yankee, Red, or Tiger shouldn't affect whether he is in the HOF. I realize that sometimes it does though. The more successful teams tend to get more players in.
Personally I think he belongs. Those are not bad offensive numbers. But his greatest strength was his defense. I voted yes based on a combination of offense and defense.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I understand what you are saying. But should that really make a difference? Whether he was a Dodger, Yankee, Red, or Tiger shouldn't affect whether he is in the HOF. I realize that sometimes it does though. The more successful teams tend to get more players in.
Personally I think he belongs. Those are not bad offensive numbers. But his greatest strength was his defense. I voted yes based on a combination of offense and defense.

He's weak on power, and he didn't have a LONG career. He did play well into his 30s, but he was done as a regular at about age 35. His 24.6 WAR suggests that if he came up earlier and posted the same numbers, he MIGHT have had 40 WAR, but that would only put him on the borderline.

WAR shows Harry Hooper with 53 WAR. It shows Torii Hunter with 50.7 WAR. Dwight Evans crushes Furillo with 67.2 WAR. He's really got a lot of folks ahead of him, and he really doesn't have the kind of mitigating factors that would justify someone cutting ahead of him in line.

[willshad]

He's weak on power, and he didn't have a LONG career. He did play well into his 30s, but he was done as a regular at about age 35. His 24.6 WAR suggests that if he came up earlier and posted the same numbers, he MIGHT have had 40 WAR, but that would only put him on the borderline.

WAR shows Harry Hooper with 53 WAR. It shows Torii Hunter with 50.7 WAR. Dwight Evans crushes Furillo with 67.2 WAR. He's really got a lot of folks ahead of him, and he really doesn't have the kind of mitigating factors that would justify someone cutting ahead of him in line.

Yeah, Furillo was obviously never going to be a HOFer, Definitely a good to have on your team, though. His only great season was 1953, and even then he was probably only the 5th or 6th best position player on his own team (believe it or not).

[Freakshow]

His only great season was 1953

Yes, it was his best season for rate stats. However, he missed the last three weeks due to injury, so his value in 1953 was quite similar to his 1949 and 1955 seasons. Those three are his only all-star-caliber years.