Red Schoendist legit Hof ?

[TomBodet]

Seems to wind up on 'bad Hof picks' lists, but I donno why. Played a long time, good hitter, fielder, manager.....what's missing?

[Cowtipper]

I'd say he is a legitimate Hall of Famer. He's one of those guys where you 'had to be there' to fully understand his case I think (kind of like 1980s folks and Jack Morris). He was a great fielder, an All-Star a zillion times and he led the league in a few categories, though he was mostly an offensive compiler. He was what Marty Marion would have needed to be for Marion to be a Hall of Famer. I think people forget his managing career a lot, too.

I wonder why he started off with great speed (he led the league with 26 steals in his first season) but declined so prodigiously in that category. He stole only 89 bases in his career and eclipsed 10 in only one other season.

[Bothrops Atrox]

As a combined player and manager and coach for 30+ years? Yes, easily. Just as a player or just as a manager? Not for me. All together, however, there have been very few people more valuable to the St. Louis Cardinals organization the past 70+ years.

[TomBodet]

Agreed to all that. Never looked at him and thought:ewwwwwww, Johnny Evers or whatever.

[StanTheMan]

There have been very few people as valuable to ANY organization during any 50 year stretch at any time in baseball history. Connie Mack of course, those types of men.

[jalbright]

He's not a great candidate solely for his play or solely for his managing. As a manager, a .522 winning percentage with one WS ring and a pennant in another year ain't bad, but it won't get you in. As a player, his 94 OPS means he wasn't much of a hitter--not bad for a 2B, to be sure, but hardly spectacular. He was above average at least defensively, but wasn't winning Gold Gloves. He never got much more than 40% from the BBWAA. Really, his case is strongest as a combination guy--not quite good enough as a player and not quite good enough as a manager, but combined, worthy of induction.

[adarowski]

Moderately below average hitter, moderately above average fielder. It is interesting that he did play (and start) so many All Star games. Certainly some "you had to be there" going on.

I've got his Hall Rating at 65 (100 is Hall of Fame level).

My most similar player for him are:
Herman Long
Arlie Latham
Terry Turner
Lave Cross
Roger Peckinpaugh

Good players all, not Hal of Famers. His managerial career doesn't particularly inspire me either.

Now, I will say this. I was going to say "why is he a Hall of Famer when [other more worthy 2B from his era] are not?" But the thing is, there really aren't other candidates from his era, so that's not bad. The best couple names I could come up with in a quick search are Gil McDougald and Eddie Stanky. It's pretty easy to see why Red would have been inducted over them, even if they did provide more value.

[Bothrops Atrox]

Moderately below average hitter, moderately above average fielder. It is interesting that he did play (and start) so many All Star games. Certainly some "you had to be there" going on.

I've got his Hall Rating at 65 (100 is Hall of Fame level).

My most similar player for him are:
Herman Long
Arlie Latham
Terry Turner
Lave Cross
Roger Peckinpaugh

Good players all, not Hal of Famers. His managerial career doesn't particularly inspire me either.

Now, I will say this. I was going to say "why is he a Hall of Famer when [other more worthy 2B from his era] are not?" But the thing is, there really aren't other candidates from his era, so that's not bad. The best couple names I could come up with in a quick search are Gil McDougald and Eddie Stanky. It's pretty easy to see why Red would have been inducted over them, even if they did provide more value.

He also spent 30+ years as a coach and instructor for a highly successful franchise after he was no longer a manager. Add those 3 things together and I am glad that he is in.

[adarowski]

He also spent 30+ years as a coach and instructor for a highly successful franchise after he was no longer a manager. Add those 3 things together and I am glad that he is in.

Right. I kind of wish guys like that had a different designation in the Hall so they wouldn't throw off my metrics.

[jjpm74]

Right. I kind of wish guys like that had a different designation in the Hall so they wouldn't throw off my metrics.

It is too bad that they couldn't come up with the Buck O'Neil award years sooner.

[chicagowhitesox1173]

If he wasn't in that would be the biggest hof snub to date.

[leecemark]

--Well I don't know about the biggest snub. There are MANY better players and MANY better managers not in. Normally a guy has to almost there as one or the other for the other half to tip the scales for me, but Red actually would be a weak selection as a player or a manager in isolation.
--That said he did have a long and successfull relationship with the Cardinals and was apparently a great guy. I don't begrudge his selection. There aren't many guys who have had similar careers so his combo offering doesn't really set much of a precedent.

[BigRon]

My view of Schoendienst as a player is more positive than some here. Remember, in those days it was very rare for middle infielders to have any real offensive "pop". Gordon, Doerr, Stephens, Robinson were rare exceptions. Schoendienst hit for a high average- over .300 numerous times- right or wrong, most managers then were happier with high BAs than high OBPs, which many of them didn't even understand. Schoendienst had good power for a middle infielder of that era- plenty of doubles, good triples rates, and occasionally in double figures in homers. He wasn't a terrible walker, but he did walk at below average rates, which kills him in OPS+, hence WAR ratings. He was an excellent fielder- Robinson and Fox were his only equals from the end of WW2 until Mazeroski came on the scene. He was also a first rate baserunner.

Maybe it doesn't matter in his overall evaluation, but he missed a full year to tuberculosis, then came back at about 37 or 38 to play well again for several seasons.

So, good BA, good power for a middle infielder of his time, fine fielding, longevity. Solely as a player he's probably just outside my HOF line, but combined with his other contributions he's an easy choice for me.

[Jackaroo Dave]

My view of Schoendienst as a player is more positive than some here. Remember, in those days it was very rare for middle infielders to have any real offensive "pop". Gordon, Doerr, Stephens, Robinson were rare exceptions. Schoendienst hit for a high average- over .300 numerous times- right or wrong, most managers then were happier with high BAs than high OBPs, which many of them didn't even understand. Schoendienst had good power for a middle infielder of that era- plenty of doubles, good triples rates, and occasionally in double figures in homers. He wasn't a terrible walker, but he did walk at below average rates, which kills him in OPS+, hence WAR ratings. He was an excellent fielder- Robinson and Fox were his only equals from the end of WW2 until Mazeroski came on the scene. He was also a first rate baserunner.
Maybe it doesn't matter in his overall evaluation, but he missed a full year to tuberculosis, then came back at about 37 or 38 to play well again for several seasons.
So, good BA, good power for a middle infielder of his time, fine fielding, longevity. Solely as a player he's probably just outside my HOF line, but combined with his other contributions he's an easy choice for me.

I think Ron nails it. A .300 hitting, slick fielding middle infielder, a "winner": on one of the most celebrated teams in history, coming to the Braves puts them over the top in 57 and 58. Then the comeback from TB, after which he hit .300 again. "Played the game the right way," what's not to like except no power and no walks, and who's counting? He was very well-respected in his time, finishing 3 and 4 in two MVP ballots, and that's in a league with Musial, Aaron, Mays, Robinsons, and so on.

I think the coaching and managing is just lagniappe, although it kept his name in the papers. He wasn't quite as good as Fox, but he was pretty much the NL equivalent. There are lots of better players outside and lots worse inside. I never heard a bad word said about him. That could go on his plaque.

[TomBodet]

True, his rep is golden. There is also something to be said for being a complete player-minus the pretty walk totals-too. Red contributed across the board and his teams won.