Of These Players...

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I've been compiling my personal HoF. Some names have stumped me. Before I induct them, I'd like to know how we feel about certain players. Comments are greatly appreciated.

Why I'm unsure:
Jake Beckley- Looks like an average fielder with pretty good wheels. OPS+ of 125 is nice, but I've seen him be excluded from others' HoFs and he played in a very turbulent 1890s.
Lou Brock- Yes he has the stolen bases and 3000 hits, but he was a poor fielder considering his speed. Got the 3000 hits due to longevity. Sabermetric numbers don't impress me. Seems like an above average batter with some good years.
Jack Clark-Not very quick, which hurt his defense. Did walk a lot and hit for power, but a .267 AVG and .379 OBP aren't Hall of Fame. I know others on this site place a lot of weight on walks, but I'm not as impressed with them as said others.
Will Clark-Though he played in a higher offensive era, his stat lines impress me a bit more than Jack Clark's. Also had an impressive peak. If SB is any indicator, he had average speed. Unsure about defense, but looks average.
Joe Cronin-Hit rather well for a shortstop, but did so during an offensive time in mostly an offensive park. Not sure about speed, but his defense seems good.
Monte Irvin- Some solid years, but a very short career. Played under racial stress. How good was his Negro League career?
Travis Jacksonn- Great defense. Average offense (good SS power), but he too played in an offensive era. Did playing for the Giants get him in?
Willie Keeler-Could definitely hit the ball, but his best years came in the all-over-the-place 1890s.
King KellyI think I've also seen him excluded in many HoFs.
Jeff Kent-Did have good offense, but positional adjustment plays a much lesser role in the power surge that occurred in the late 1990s, even for players nor using PEDs. Middle infielders were becoming much more bulky by this time.
Bob LemonNot so much his numbers but longevity. War credit, perhaps?
Ted Lyons-Overall, lasted a long time in an era where batters were shelling pitchers. Had some really good seasons and accumulated a WAR over 60.
Bid McPhee-Again, I've seen him excluded. I also know little of him
Minnie Minoso-It seems almost everyone on this site is dying for Minoso to be inducted. However, his stats only look "pretty good" to me, which isn't enough. I must learn more.
Red Ruffing-While he allowed many runs, he also won many games. Playing for the Yankees helped him, but he seems to be more of a player who's few bad starts outweigh his many good ones. After all, he too lasted for a long time and pitched many innings when batters were dominating. Besides, I think an important factor for any HoF is inducting the best players relative to their era. It's unfair to look across the board and say Joe Smith, a 105 OPS+ shortstop, isn't worthy when all the other shortstops of his era were at 90 OPS+.
Gary Sheffield-How much do steroids factor in? Is hitting 500 homers, even in his era, an automatic induction?
Also not a very good fielder.
Bobby Wallace-Last a long time with good defense. Though his offense seems rather lacking, was he comparatively better to other SS in his era?
Mickey Welch-Didn't seem to do anything special, but 300 wins is 300 wins.

[Bothrops Atrox]

A lot of borderline guys there. I have Wallace, Kent, and Lemon in, but wouldn't cry if they were left out. I also wouldn't shed a tear if W. Clark or Beckly were "in".

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I'm a small Hall guy, so someone who's borderline is usually out. But these guys are REALLY borderline. I also feel obligated to get more information before making a decision

[fenrir]

A lot of borderline guys there. I have Wallace, Kent, and Lemon in, but wouldn't cry if they were left out. I also wouldn't shed a tear if W. Clark or Beckly were "in".

Sheffield is more than borderline if you just look strictly at offense. I know that "WAR" isn't too kind to Sheffield, but as a hitter he was a beast at the plate, and would certainly merit being in the HOF based on his offense alone.

Now, how much steroids factor into that is another thing. We have very little information on Sheffield's use other than the fact that he claimed to have used a cream from BALCO "unknowingly" once in 2002. Whether that's all he used is something we'll never know.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Sheffield is more than borderline if you just look strictly at offense. I know that "WAR" isn't too kind to Sheffield, but as a hitter he was a beast at the plate, and would certainly merit being in the HOF based on his offense alone.

Now, how much steroids factor into that is another thing. We have very little information on Sheffield's use other than the fact that he claimed to have used a cream from BALCO "unknowingly" once in 2002. Whether that's all he used is something we'll never know.

Yeah, I'd say that Cronin, Ruffing, and Lyons are the ones I wouldn't even think twice about with Sheffield a hair behind them. The others need some debate. Well, no debate will help Travis Jackson or Jack the Ripper. Not a Welch fan either.

[Bothrops Atrox]

I've been compiling my personal HoF. Some names have stumped me. Before I induct them, I'd like to know how we feel about certain players. Comments are greatly appreciated.


Red Ruffing-While he allowed many runs, he also won many games. Playing for the Yankees helped him, but he seems to be more of a player who's few bad starts outweigh his many good ones. After all, he too lasted for a long time and pitched many innings when batters were dominating. Besides, I think an important factor for any HoF is inducting the best players relative to their era. It's unfair to look across the board and say Joe Smith, a 105 OPS+ shortstop, isn't worthy when all the other shortstops of his era were at 90 OPS+.

Don't forget that Ruffing was a GREAT hitter and gained tons of positive value with his bat.

[John Shoemaker]

I voted for Gary Sheffield, Jeff Kent, and Jack Clark

[J W]

I do not recall ever seeing Joe Cronin's name associated with "borderline". How far his reputation has fallen...

I am not a small-hall guy but neither do I have a personal Hall of Fame. There are no parameters and that's kind of what I need to feel satisfied with one. That said, I'll offer my opinion if you'll have it:

Beckley - classic "good for a long time" player. Consistent. Usually at the bottom of my list when we do Cooperstown-sized or player(s)-per-year projects.
Brock - don't like him, but he's got the SB thing going for him as well as the 3000 hits. He is usually the guy who gets a token vote from me, and it's very late in the process.
J Clark - underrated player. Still it seems too many people get in front of him in line in the queue.
W Clark - near the head of the non-elite first basemen, which usually leads to him getting my vote. Too much emphasis on his injuries and not enough on his contributions in later years. Hard to believe he was one-and-done.
Cronin - top ten SS ever. Top half hall of famer, possible top 100 all time. I'd take Cronin over Ozzie Smith, Luke Appling, and Barry Larkin but they're all in the same neighborhood.
Irvin - Negro League career was good enough. Comparable to Billy Williams and Goose Goslin in value.
Jackson - worst SS in the HoF, but best "worst" player by position. Never made my ballot for anything other than "rank the HoFers".
Keeler - overrated player (or at least used to be) but still a middle-of-the-pack HoFer. Looks like George Sisler of the OF... most of his production came from his batting average but it was one heck of a batting average.
Kelly - I guess it comes down to how you feel about players from the 1870s and 1880s but for those who credit them equally, easy HoFer. He was a star player who played multiple positions including catcher.
Kent - Tough one. Certainly has the bat to be a HoFer but the glove was not good. He was a "knucklehead"... was he ever implicated as a PED user?
Lemon - good selection for a Cooperstown-sized project but not for a small-sized HoF.
Lyons - If Early Wynn, then certainly Ted Lyons, that's what I say.
McPhee - Another tough one for me in that he played his first eight seasons in the weak American Association... but he carries the same 107 OPS+ into the National League when the strong Cincinnati Red Stockings jumped on board and became the Reds. Usually a guy that gets my vote but not until after 150 players or so have passed.
Minoso - he gets attention as much as a Latin-barrier breaking pioneer as he does a player. He started his major league career at a reasonable age (23, first full season at 25) so the question is how much more of a career he would have had under equal circumstances. I am an avid supporter of Minoso's induction into Cooperstown (and believe he will get the same stupid post-mortem treatment Ron Santo got)... but an inner-circle LFer he was not.
Ruffing - Other people like Ruffing more than me, pointing to his 81 OPS+ as a 20th century pitcher at the plate. His player value as a batter according to BB-Ref is 14.7 WAR. I still see no more than a very good hitter for his position with barely over 2000 PA. But I still see him in the Ted Lyons / Early Wynn mold... or just below them.
Shefflield - Indeed, how much do steroids factor in? It's as simple as that to me when deciding in or out. He was a premier hitter of his day; all things being equal I'd take him over Sammy Sosa for example. Actually things are pretty equal, so yeah I'd vote for him over Sosa. Close though, Sosa was a better defender.
Wallace - I'm not 100% behind the WAR stat but 66.0 rWAR is enough to give me pause. And since you're asking about how he compares to other SS of his era, WAR is quite the applicable stat. Notable names who played the same time as Wallace are Honus Wagner, Bill Dahlen, Joe Tinker and Hughie Jennings. Wallace I would put squarely in the middle of those four.
Welch - see: Bob Lemon. I don't get the constant hammering on Welch -- yeah he won 300 games primarily because he pitched in the 1880s but he has better statistics than for example Bobby Mathews (except for pWAR) and it was not easy to carry such a big workload for nearly 5000 IP. But he's still squarely on the bubble in practically every project I've seen.

[KHenry14]

A few thoughts....

W. Clark was a + defender at 1b. Not Hernandez or Snow good, but well above average. As much as I love the Thrill, he's not in my HOF.

Kent is in IMO. One of the best hitting 2b men, especially for power. Decent defender, bad teammate though.

Lyons is in. Just too good for too long.

Jackson is the classic case of getting voted in because he knew the right people. Not in my HOF.

Sheffield is a roider, and a bad teammate. As yourself why he put up the numbers he did, yet went from team to team to team. 8 different teams, who does he think he is, LaTroy Hawkins?? :hyper:

[leecemark]

--Brock doesn't deserve the hall based strictly on value, but if you are telling the story of baseball history he belongs ahead of many better players. 3,000 hits, retired with the single season and career stolen base records and a tremendous World series performer.
--KIng Kelly probably deserves it stictly based on alue on the field, but he also has a compellign back story. Probably THE biggest star of his era.

[Tyrus4189Cobb]

I appreciate the feedback, guys. I'm reconstructing my HoF as we speak. As of now, I have 197 players excluding Negro Leaguers. I'm still trying to cut it down to about 150-160

[brett]

Small hall guy. Cronin stands out. Saber value, historical place, and traditional stats (.301, 2200 hits and 1400 RBI for a shortstop).

Brock and Keeler get big historical importance points. I'd favor Keeler because I think he was a more valuable player. Keeler is IN with history on his side.

Ruffing is right on the border for value with historical impact too. I'd say that with his post season play he is IN.

So Cronin on value alone, Ruffing very close on value and in overall, Keeler with a big historical boost. Being a small hall guy, the others are probably under 50% probability if I get around to filling my complete hall.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Small hall guy. Cronin stands out. Saber value, historical place, and traditional stats (.301, 2200 hits and 1400 RBI for a shortstop).

Brock and Keeler get big historical importance points. I'd favor Keeler because I think he was a more valuable player. Keeler is IN with history on his side.

Ruffing is right on the border for value with historical impact too. I'd say that with his post season play he is IN.

So Cronin on value alone, Ruffing very close on value and in overall, Keeler with a big historical boost. Being a small hall guy, the others are probably under 50% probability if I get around to filling my complete hall.

No Lyons? No great seasons (outside of 27), but really, really good for a very, very long time. 65+ WAR with 9 4+ WAR seasons...

Yeah, I forgot to include Keeler in my "yes" list above.

[brett]

No Lyons? No great seasons (outside of 27), but really, really good for a very, very long time. 65+ WAR with 9 4+ WAR seasons...

Yeah, I forgot to include Keeler in my "yes" list above.

Lyons is one of the players who would define my borderline. He was a pretty good hitter for a pitcher. His pitching has him very close. No real story (he is one of the last hall of famers I came to know anything about). I might call him 60/40 right now.

there are a few others in the list who are 40/60 or better for me. Its a real borderline list.

[Yankillaz]

At least we all got Travis Jackson right.