Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Hall of Merit > Discussion
Hall of Merit
— A Look at Baseball's All-Time Best

Sunday, May 29, 2005

Stan Hack

Stan Hack

Eligible in 1953.

John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 29, 2005 at 12:25 AM | 17 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Related News:

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 29, 2005 at 12:52 AM (#1368854)
As Bill James pointed out about twenty years ago, the HOF picked so many stiffs from the twenties and thirties, yet bypassed someone like Hack who was truly outstanding.
   2. sunnyday2 Posted: May 29, 2005 at 03:19 AM (#1369058)
3B is quickly becoming one of the tougher positions to judge. The top 5, I think, are:

Beckwith
Hack
Leach
Traynor
Williamson

Does any position have a top 5 as different from one another as this? I don't know how it is going to come out, while at all other positions there seems to be a fairly clear pecking order.

One could argue that their alpha listing is pretty close to their ranking on offense, and that on defense it would be just the reverse.
   3. Michael Bass Posted: May 29, 2005 at 03:36 AM (#1369087)
MAny years ago, when Stan's name came up, I thought I'd leap at the chance to vote for him (this was during the latter stages of the 20s backlog, I think).

Now, I'm pretty sure he'll be off my ballot (not that far off, but off). Not quite enough. Also a good advertisement that WARP3's 1945 discounts aren't steep enough (contra my normal argument).
   4. karlmagnus Posted: May 29, 2005 at 02:04 PM (#1369585)
Hack looks to be well off my ballot -- short career and rate stats inflated by WWII.
   5. sunnyday2 Posted: May 29, 2005 at 02:41 PM (#1369628)
The thing with Hack and a lot of guys--Bresnahan comes to mind--is that compared to the Cooperstown HoF there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. OTOH the HoM so far is maintaining either a much higher standard (my position) or just a different one (i.e. many more NeLers, more 19C, etc.). And compared to the "bottom line"--weakest players--in the HoM from the 20C MLs, then guys like Hack and Bresnahan don't look so good. A ton better than the Marquards and G. Kelly's et al, but not the strong candidates we once thought they would be. Still I expect to see Hack in my top 25, or worst case top 40.
   6. Mark Shirk (jsch) Posted: May 29, 2005 at 04:46 PM (#1369787)
From 1943 to 1945 Stan Hack had 21,13,34 WS respectively. If you apply a 10% discount to these seasons I get 19,13,30. When both schedule adjusting and when looking at NeL and MiL MLE's I have only rounded up at .7, so Hack's 1945 loses that extra WS. These deductions slide him back behind Billy Herman but he still looks to be in the 10-20 range on my ballot.

I was also wondering about WWII deductions. I think we should make them (obviously those who don't give WWII credit will take umbrage with this) and I think we have talked most about a 10% discount. To some extent this seems a little low as most every MLB player spent some time in the service during the war.

However, I am nto sure we can really heavily discount these guys a lot because they were heling their teams win and it wasn't liek they were draft dodgers or anything. In fact one coudl say that by playing baseball they were helping those working in the armory facotires unwind after work.
   7. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 29, 2005 at 05:11 PM (#1369836)
However, I am nto sure we can really heavily discount these guys a lot because they were heling their teams win and it wasn't liek they were draft dodgers or anything. In fact one coudl say that by playing baseball they were helping those working in the armory facotires unwind after work.

There should only be deductions made in order to place their numbers in a non-4F competitive environment. I am adamantly against any other deductions beyond that.

BTW, I'm surprised to see little support so far for Hack's candidacy. I don't know where he belongs yet, but he looks like an easy ballot selection even with deductions for his WII seasons (principally '43 and '44).
   8. DavidFoss Posted: May 29, 2005 at 05:39 PM (#1369908)
BTW, I'm surprised to see little support so far for Hack's candidacy. I don't know where he belongs yet, but he looks like an easy ballot selection even with deductions for his WII seasons (principally '43 and '44).

What about 1945? Actually, I'll deduct from 43 & 44 as well to be consistent and fair, but those two years don't look like a player taking advantage of inferior competition. They look like off years compared to his excellent 40-42.

As far as "inflated" rate stats go, what are we saying? It should be 117 instead of 119? Fair enough, I guess. Since its so OBP heavy, he may make my ballot as I'm friendly to his side of the defensive spectrum. I still have to check his fielding, though.
   9. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: May 29, 2005 at 06:05 PM (#1369977)
What about 1945?

I meant '44 and '45. Sorry about that, David.
   10. sunnyday2 Posted: May 29, 2005 at 09:52 PM (#1370522)
To me, whether they were draft dodgers or not is kind of a red herring. They played ball so they get credit, but they clearly played against weak competition, so they get a discount just like the early AA (the 1880s ML one) or the 1910-'20s PCL. Same with the debate about whether a player volunteered or got drafted. I don't see how it matters. These are not character issues, they're competitive issues.
   11. OCF Posted: May 30, 2005 at 02:33 AM (#1371093)
I've made a competition adjustment for Hack's war years - by bumping his park factors up by 5% to 10% (depending on which year). Sure, his 1945 was a good year, but his 1941, 1938, and (after the adjustment) 1940 show up as better.

I've got him (by my modified RCAA system) as clearly the 2nd best white 3rd baseman I've worked up, and not all that far behind Baker offensively (in a peak-friendly system). I have him, offensively, substantially ahead of Groh, Leach, Collins, and Traynor, and in a range where he'd be a respectable candidate as a CF.
   12. Paul Wendt Posted: February 19, 2008 at 06:46 AM (#2694376)
John Murphy in Ballot Group 3
>> 6) Stan Hack-3B: Amazingly, Stan wasn't a hacker! :-)
Best major league third baseman for 1935, 1937, 1941, 1942, 1945 and 1946. Best NL third baseman for 1936.
<<

JTM uses win shares for this feature (mainly?).
By win shares Hack is not close in 1946.
Otherwise, I agree.
The 1935 and 1937 mlb leaderships are ties with Red Rolfe and Harlond Clift.

MLB rank 1935-40 ; 1941-46
1t 4 1t 2 4t 2 ; 1 1 3 - 1 3

That is a very good record at any position. Probably 1938 was his best season, 33 win shares, second to Mel Ott, a ringer in his only season at 3B. There were two win shares MVPs at third base during this period, Ott in 1938 and Hack in 1945.
   13. Paul Wendt Posted: February 19, 2008 at 06:54 AM (#2694386)
John Murphy in Ballot Group 3
>> 6) Stan Hack-3B: Amazingly, Stan wasn't a hacker! :-)
Best major league third baseman for 1935, 1937, 1941, 1942, 1945 and 1946. Best NL third baseman for 1936.
<<

JTM uses win shares for this feature (mainly?).
By win shares Hack is not close in 1946.
Otherwise, I agree.
The 1935 and 1937 mlb leaderships are ties with Red Rolfe and Harlond Clift.

MLB rank 1935-40 ; 1941-46
1t 4 1t 2 4t 2 ; 1 1 3 - 1 3

That is a very good record at any position. Probably 1938 was his best season, 33 win shares, second to Mel Ott, a ringer in his only season at 3B. There were two win shares MVPs at third base during this period, Ott in 1938 and Hack in 1945.

Hack was the regular 3Bman in 1934 with about 80% games played. At 13 win shares he ranks NL 3rd and MLB tie 7th.
   14. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 19, 2008 at 02:37 PM (#2694478)
JTM uses win shares for this feature (mainly?).
By win shares Hack is not close in 1946.
Otherwise, I agree.


I use a mixture of WS and WS/162 Games, Paul.
   15. John (You Can Call Me Grandma) Murphy Posted: February 19, 2008 at 02:50 PM (#2694490)
Actually, I missed Whitey Kurowski, so I agree that Hack wasn't the best in 1946.
   16. Paul Wendt Posted: February 24, 2008 at 09:37 PM (#2698777)
(relying entirely on season win shares)

Stan Hack - seasons leading MLB or NL thirdbasemen by win shares
mlb: 1935t 37t 41 42 45 (three outright, two tie)
NL: 1935 36 37 41 42 45 (six outright)


The following table underlies #13. Now I am posting it for comparison with the list of leading 2Bmen during Cupid Childs time, in the same format (Cupid Childs #68ff)

Third Base 1935-1946: leading players by win shares
(16 or more win shares; 154-game schedule throughout)


1935
AL Rolfe 22, Hale 20, Travis 20, Clift 17
NL Hack 22, Martin 19
1936
AL Rolfe 24, Clift 23, Hale 20, Owen 16, Lewis 16
NL Hack 19
1937
AL Clift 23, Lewis 20, Rolfe 19, Higgins 16
NL Hack 23, Whitney 16
1938
AL Clift 25, Rolfe 22, Lewis 20, Keltner 18
NL Ott 36, Hack 33, Lavagetto 18, Handley 17
1939
AL Rolfe 30, Keltner 26, Lewis 22, Clift 18, Tabor 16, McNair 16
NL Werber 25, Lavagetto 23, Hack 23,
1940
AL Clift 23, Travis 22, Tabor 16, Keltner 16
NL Werber 27, Hack 25, Garms 19, May 16
1941
AL Keltner 23, Clift 21, Higgins 16, Rolfe 16
NL Hack 30, Brown 21, Lavagetto 16
1942
AL Clift 24, Keltner 20, Estalella 20
NL Hack 26, Elliott 22, Vaughn 19,
1943
AL Johnson 22, Hodgin 18
NL Elliott 25, Hack 21, Kurowski 18
1944
AL Keltner 22, Higgins 22, Christman 21, Hodgin 17, Tabor 16, Grimes 16
NL Elliott 27, Kurowski 22 (Hughes 15 and Hack 13, Chicago)
1945
AL Grimes 21, Cuccinello 19
NL Hack 34, Kurowski 27, Elliott 20
1946
AL Kell 22=18+4
NL Kurowski 26, Hack 17, Halton 16
   17. Paul Wendt Posted: February 24, 2008 at 09:48 PM (#2698794)
Stan Hack #16 and Cupid Childs #68
I have only these two win shares analyses of fielding positions in typical career-length timespans: 12 years, 24 leagues, the prime time of Stan Hack; 13 years, 18 leagues covering Cupid Childs eleven seasons as a regular player.

Comparison suggests that Childs was annually leading the second baseman (some say "dominating") under unusual circumstances. During his seven-season run leading the NL second basemen there were two ties and three more one- or two-Win Share margins for the league leadership. Contrast the Stan Hack at 3B study: one tie and seven other close calls in 24 league-seasons (8/24); two ties and one close call between the NL and AL leading 3Bmen (3/12).

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis on Acid
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 0.2736 seconds
49 querie(s) executed