Announcement

**leecemark** · 03-11-2006, 09:52 PM

--I wouldn't support a tiered Hall in real life either, but I would support an inner circle concept where the true elite get an additional level of honor. Multiple tiers can only end up insulting some players who are supposed to be honored. A small group of players, chosen only from players already inducted, could serve to quell the complaints of people who don't want to see Tony Perez in the same Hall as Babe Ruth or Bert Blyleven with Walter Johnson or whatever.
-- Induct say 5 players to start and 2 a year for however long seems appropriate. They could have statues instead of plaques or gold instead of bronze or a separate display area or something. Who would be your first 5?

**Sultan_1895-1948** · 03-11-2006, 11:16 PM

Chris, would you ever consider moving Schalk up to tier #3? Just wonderin'. He was a whiz.

The tiered idea would get my vote in real life, but not to the extent Chris went to on this one. Good work too Chris, you alphabetized all of them and everything. Lotsa work.

Four tiers is too much. Three might be alright. I like the idea of an elite tier, where every player in there has there own special section and stuff. It'd have to be much smaller than the one you laid out Chris. We're talking the upper elites of the elites here.

The second tier would have the Reggies and the Arkys and stuff, then the bottom tier would be for the Rizzutos and Sandbergs of the world.

Elite Tier

Honus
Ty
Babe
Walter
Cy
Tris
Willie
Stan
Christy
Joe M.
Rogers
Ted W.
Mickey
Joe D.
A few more, probably up to 20.

**runningshoes** · 03-11-2006, 11:27 PM

I'm for an inner circle.

I even think the writers may be capable of pulling that one off.

**Honus Wagner Rules** · 03-12-2006, 01:11 AM

Christ,

Great list. The only I would strongly diagree with is Ernie Lombardi as a 4th tier. I'd have him as a 3rd tier myself, but that's just me.

**538280** · 03-12-2006, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948

Chris, would you ever consider moving Schalk up to tier #3? Just wonderin'. He was a whiz.

Maybe if you could give me some reasons why. I'm pretty set on Schalk though. He's one of the worst players in the Hall, he was reputed to be a great defensive catcher (one of the best ever actually), but statistics haven't been that kind to him. He was supposed to be great at handling pitchers, so maybe defensive metrics are missing much of his greatness. So, I'm willing to call him a great defensive catcher.

But, so was Rick Dempsey, Del Crandall, Jim Sundberg, and Hank Gowdy, and those guys were just as good or probably better hitters, and they lasted about the same amount of time. I've never heard any of those guys mentioned as HOFers. Really, what does Schalk have that Rick Dempsey doesn't?

One more question: You don't think Ryne Sandberg is a HOFer? Don't really see any legitimate argument against him. He was a very good hitter, especially for a 2B, an all time great fielder (9 Gold Gloves), and an MVP. Traditional opinions and sabermetrics both seem to think he was an all time great, so why don't you like him?

**Sultan_1895-1948** · 03-12-2006, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by 538280

Maybe if you could give me some reasons why. I'm pretty set on Schalk though. He's one of the worst players in the Hall, he was reputed to be a great defensive catcher (one of the best ever actually), but statistics haven't been that kind to him. He was supposed to be great at handling pitchers, so maybe defensive metrics are missing much of his greatness. So, I'm willing to call him a great defensive catcher.

But, so was Rick Dempsey, Del Crandall, Jim Sundberg, and Hank Gowdy, and those guys were just as good or probably better hitters, and they lasted about the same amount of time. I've never heard any of those guys mentioned as HOFers. Really, what does Schalk have that Rick Dempsey doesn't?

One more question: You don't think Ryne Sandberg is a HOFer? Don't really see any legitimate argument against him. He was a very good hitter, especially for a 2B, an all time great fielder (9 Gold Gloves), and an MVP. Traditional opinions and sabermetrics both seem to think he was an all time great, so why don't you like him?

I don't really have much motivation to prove a case for Schalk, just curious as to why you have him in tier #4. I wasn't aware that your defensive metrics didn't see him for what he was. If that's the case, then I understand your position.

His career wasn't long, and he did swing a wet noodle. He had 177SB/69CS which is pretty darn good for a catcher taking the wear and tear they do. I would only say that the same criticism you apply to Pudge for not working with the pitchers, etc, you should extend the same level of praise to Schalk in that sense. He worked with the pitchers, called a great game and thought along with the hitter, he was a true team guy, a scrappy defensive genius. Not to mention he caught Cicotte, which couldn't have been a walk in the park. Taking the era in context, and understanding that he was an unselfish guy playing a defense first position, I just think he shouldn't be in tier #4. Tier #3 seems reasonable.

As far as Sandberg, I grew up watching him on WGN day in and day out. He was a fine player. I think the park he played in had a lot to do with his success, but maybe you could show me numbers that prove me wrong on that, eh

**unfinished_business** · 03-12-2006, 11:11 AM

The TOP-tier is already there!

The First Ballot Hall of Famers.

Anything else is disrespectful to other Hall of Famers!

**538280** · 03-12-2006, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Sultan_1895-1948

I don't really have much motivation to prove a case for Schalk, just curious as to why you have him in tier #4. I wasn't aware that your defensive metrics didn't see him for what he was. If that's the case, then I understand your position.

His career wasn't long, and he did swing a wet noodle. He had 177SB/69CS which is pretty darn good for a catcher taking the wear and tear they do. I would only say that the same criticism you apply to Pudge for not working with the pitchers, etc, you should extend the same level of praise to Schalk in that sense. He worked with the pitchers, called a great game and thought along with the hitter, he was a true team guy, a scrappy defensive genius. Not to mention he caught Cicotte, which couldn't have been a walk in the park. Taking the era in context, and understanding that he was an unselfish guy playing a defense first position, I just think he shouldn't be in tier #4. Tier #3 seems reasonable.

I'm sure Schalk was a great defensive catcher (the defensive metrics don't take pitcher handling into account), but still, all of the things you say about Schalk could also be said about Rick Dempsey, and I don't think anyone wants him in the Hall.

I said Tier 4 was for "mistakes or very marginal choices", and I just don't see how Schalk really does belong in. He is extremely similar to Rick Dempsey, and that's not too much a compliment for his HOF worthiness. Charles Johnson was a better hitter and better on defense (although he did have a shorter career), and I don't think anyone wants him in either.

As far as Sandberg, I grew up watching him on WGN day in and day out. He was a fine player. I think the park he played in had a lot to do with his success, but maybe you could show me numbers that prove me wrong on that, eh

His home park probably did help him a lot, but his numbers are still fantastic. He was an awesome hitter for a 2B, and he was an outstanding fielder and an MVP with a long career. Not too much of a case against him.

**Sultan_1895-1948** · 03-12-2006, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by 538280

I'm sure Schalk was a great defensive catcher (the defensive metrics don't take pitcher handling into account), but still, all of the things you say about Schalk could also be said about Rick Dempsey, and I don't think anyone wants him in the Hall.

I said Tier 4 was for "mistakes or very marginal choices", and I just don't see how Schalk really does belong in. He is extremely similar to Rick Dempsey, and that's not too much a compliment for his HOF worthiness. Charles Johnson was a better hitter and better on defense (although he did have a shorter career), and I don't think anyone wants him in either.

His home park probably did help him a lot, but his numbers are still fantastic. He was an awesome hitter for a 2B, and he was an outstanding fielder and an MVP with a long career. Not too much of a case against him.

By no means is Schalk an elite, or even second tier HOFer, so I was just throwin' a bone out there for him to be in tier #3. You do apply your own harsh judgement on Ivan (which I agree with) for certain reasons, and those same reasons are what Schalk had/did to a great degree. So I think maybe you should take your defensive metrics and flush 'em down the friekin' toilet! lol, jk man, thought I'd throw ya for a loop there

Nah, you should use them if you believe in them, but you should also take into account that he was not only very good in other important catching areas, but he was great at them. I haven't read up or heard much about Rick Dempsey though.

For Sandberg, he was a solid player in his day. If his home park helped him offensively, does it matter what position he played? Honestly, if it helped, it helped. Once he steps in the batters box, it doesn't matter if he's a third baseman, centerfielder, or shorstop. He's a hitter at that point.

Having said that, I understand how you like to use positional adjustments because of "value" to a team. I get that. Judging an actual players greatness has little to do with "value" though. We're not building a team here, just judging his skills, so in that sense, his home park did help him put up better numbers, regardless of what position he played. Do you see what I'm getting at?

**538280** · 03-13-2006, 07:50 AM

[QUOTE=Sultan_1895-1948Nah, you should use them if you believe in them, but you should also take into account that he was not only very good in other important catching areas, but he was great at them. I haven't read up or heard much about Rick Dempsey though.[/quote]

Rick Dempsey was a team leader and great handler of the pitchers, and he also was known to have a strong arm and be great at throwing out would be basestealers. He was known as one of the best defensive catchers in his time, just like Schalk. He was actually a better hitter than Schalk too, with an OPS+ 4 points higher and a couple of good hitting seasons for a catcher (1980, 1985, 1988). Schalk may have been a little bit better defensively but a little bit worse offensively. They had careers of about the same length. Basically the same players 60 or so years apart. Neither are anywhere near HOF credentials. One, of course, is in as one of the worst players in the Hall.

For Sandberg, he was a solid player in his day. If his home park helped him offensively, does it matter what position he played? Honestly, if it helped, it helped. Once he steps in the batters box, it doesn't matter if he's a third baseman, centerfielder, or shorstop. He's a hitter at that point.

Having said that, I understand how you like to use positional adjustments because of "value" to a team. I get that. Judging an actual players greatness has little to do with "value" though. We're not building a team here, just judging his skills, so in that sense, his home park did help him put up better numbers, regardless of what position he played. Do you see what I'm getting at?

Value to the team is a big part of HOF credentials. To me, the biggest part of what makes how good you are is how much you help your team win. The fact Sandberg can hit like that from a defensive position makes him extremely valuable. He's not top tier certainly, or maybe not even 2nd tier but he's a good, solid HOFer.

**leecemark** · 03-13-2006, 08:14 AM

--Sandberg is pretty clearly amoung the top 10 at 2B. Being top 10 at your position is a solid Hall of Fame credential. The only player who fits that criteria and is not in IMO is Ron Santo. Santo, not coincidentally, is also the best eligible player not in the Hall IMO.

**DoubleX** · 03-13-2006, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by leecemark

A small group of players, chosen only from players already inducted, could serve to quell the complaints of people who don't want to see Tony Perez in the same Hall as Babe Ruth or Bert Blyleven with Walter Johnson or whatever.

OMG, did I miss it? Did Blyleven get in?!

**leecemark** · 03-13-2006, 09:09 AM

--The arguement against him is that he was never a dominating star. Which is true enough. He wasn't Walter Johnson or Lefty Grove or even Robin Roberts. Of course, neither were Eppa Rixey or Don Drysdale or most of the other HoFers. Having an inner circle would help eliminate the elitist arguements which fantasize about a Hall that doesn't actually exist anyway.

**Tigerfan1974** · 03-13-2006, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by leecemark

--I wouldn't support a tiered Hall in real life either, but I would support an inner circle concept where the true elite get an additional level of honor.

Tiering v. inner circle? What's the difference?

You are still saying some are better than others!

Announcement

Tiered HOF

Tiered HOF

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Ad Widget