He was good, but just not good enough, IMO.

I would take Walker Cooper over George Kell. I have Kell preliminarily around #100, also below his rough contemporary Mickey Vernon. Cooper, meanwhile, is at the top of the next class of catchers after the Bresnahan-Lombardi-Schang group, or perhaps he is really at the bottom of but a part of that same group. IOW he is probably more comp. to Bresnahan and Lombardi than to Sherm Lollar and Del Crandall.

Though all of them are of course miles behind the elite catchers.

One of my favorite announcers, but not good enough as a player...

I see him as a poor man's Pie Traynor which might get him on my ballot

I see him as a poor man's Pie Traynor which might get him on my ballot

Frankly, I'm more concerned as to where Campanella will wind up (or not) on your ballot, yest. :-0

Not-Grandma, why are you bugging everyone about where Campy's going to go? He will sail in, but he won't be unanimous (he's #5 on my ballot, not #1.) So why does it matter where the admirable, hard working, consensus-defying yest puts him?

Kell looks to me like the white Ray Dandridge. Good singles hitter, some doubles power. Better plate discipline than Dandridge, but probably worse fielding.

Very good player, but not close to the ballot, maybe not among the top 100 eligible players as of 1963.

Frankly, I'm more concerned as to where Campanella will wind up (or not) on your ballot, yest. :-0
he'll be in the 3-7 range (better and longer Negroe Leauge numbers then Jackie)

He will sail in, but he won't be unanimous

Unfortunately. Sorry, but it bugs me and probably the vast majority of the electorate, too. We'll just have to roll with it, though.

So why does it matter where the admirable, hard working, consensus-defying yest puts him?

In the end, it doesn't. However, our project encourages us to debate the selections, which I did with you (as you know). But I'm not going to round up some of the others with pitchforks and torches against the "heathens," either. Besides, IIRC, I've had a few selections that were questioned once or twice by the electorate. :-)

he'll be in the 3-7 range (better and longer Negroe Leauge numbers then Jackie)

Well, it's good to hear that he'll make your ballot, yest.

Kell looks to me like the white Ray Dandridge. Good singles hitter, some doubles power. Better plate discipline than Dandridge, but probably worse fielding.

My impression is that he was considered a very good batter (maybe overrated because he was in a good Detroit offense for a while) but not revered as a fielder. Dandridge was revered as a fielder, I think.

One of my favorite announcers, but not good enough as a player...

I'll agree with Buddha on the broadcasting and the playing record. I watched many a Tigers game with George Kell and Al Kaline in the booth. It was funny how both we're Hall of Fame players yet when they would talk about their playing days they always put down their own accomplishments.

My impression is that he was considered a very good batter (maybe overrated because he was in a good Detroit offense for a while) but not revered as a fielder.

Yes. Perennial all-star (1947-54, 56-57). Lifetime batting average over .300 (8 straight seasons, also 9 of 10) . Seven times top five in batting average including a memorable batting titles won by an eyelash over Ted Williams. Its easy to see why his contemporaries liked him. FWIW, his strikeout numbers are quite low.

In retrospect, he's hurt a bit by playing is prime in hitters parks. He's also got some in-season durability issues. Even so, his OPS+ numbers of 136-128-123-120-119-118 are not eye-popping, but not too shabby. Its a crowded backlog and I don't see him near by ballot, but he was a fine player.

My all-time 3Bs (MLers only) based on Reputation Monitor. Note that I add in my bullshirt dump before final.

Inner Circle (over 250)

1. Mike Schmidt 349 (#11 retired position player)
2. Wade Boggs 270
3. George Brett 267
4. Eddie Mathews 260

Also No-Brainers (200-250)

5. Brooks Robinson 225
6. Frank Baker 213
7. Ron Santo 206

Why Not Elect? (175-200)

8. Paul Molitor 195
9. Deacon White 193
10. Jimmy Collins 175

Why Elect? (150-175)*

11. Pie Traynor 170*
12. Ken Boyer 168
13. Heinie Groh 168*
14. Stan Hack 164*
15. Al Rosen 155
16. Tommy Leach 155*
17. Bob Elliott 152*

* The dearth of HoF/HoM caliber 3Bs prior to 1950 works in favor of a couple of these guys.

Not Quite Unless They Can Show Me the Money (125-150)**

18. Bobby Bonilla 142
19. Denny Lyons 141**
20. Sal Bando 141

21. Darrell Evans 137
22. Lave Cross 135
23. Heinie Zimmerman 133
24. Graig Nettles 133
25. Ezra Sutton 129**
26. George Kell 128--ah, there he is

Not Close Unless They Can Show Me the Money (100-125)**

27. Buddy Bell 119
28. Ed Williamson 119**
29. Ron Cey 118
30. Larry Gardner 117
31. Harlond Clift 115
32. Bill Bradley 115
33. John McGraw 115
34. Levi Meyerle 112**
35. Arlie Lathan 105**
36. Art Devlin 103
37. Toby Harrah 102

**This particular measure was developed for 20C players and it does not work for the 19C, so some 19C guys below a 150 rating are considered to be candidates. Almost no 20C player <150 is considered a serious candidate.

Not a Candidate No Matter What and a Huge Mistake If in the HoF (<100)

44. Freddie Lindstrom 87

Totally coincidentally, James has Kell #30 and Lindstrom #43. My #38-43, also ahead of Lindstrom, are Madlock, Keltner, Wallach, Pendleton, Gaetti, DeCinces.

I have Eddie Yost at #45 with a 87 rating essentially tied with Lindstrom and DeCinces.

I love ranked lists. I use WS and I adjust everyone up to 162 games. I'll include NgLs just because I've got it ranked that way.

NO-BRAINERS
1. Mike Schmidt
2. Eddie Matthews
3. Deacon White (this includes his catcher time)
4. Ezra Sutton
5. Frank Baker
6. George Brett
7. Wade Boggs

99% NO-BRAINERS
8. Jud Wilson
9. Ron Santo

STRONG CANDIDATES
10. Heinie Groh
11. Jimmy Collins
12. Stan Hack

GOOD CAREER CANDIDATES
13. Darrell Evans
14. Brooksie

STILL ADDING TO HIS LEGEND
15. Chipper Jones

9 ALMOST IDENTICAL GUYS, NONE TOO TERRIBLY LIKELY FOR ELECTION
16. Sal Bando
17. Ned Williamson
18. Arlie Latham (he gets no love)
19. Bobby Bonilla
20. Ken Boyer
21. Bob Elliott
22. Toby Harrah
23. Graig Nettles

THE PEAKSTERS...EVEN MORE UNLIKELY
24. Al Rosen
25. John McGraw

WAITING FOR ANOTHER HEALTHY YEAR OR TWO
26. Scott Rolen

-----(personal outer boundary for election)---------

AND THE REST
27. Pie Traynor
28. Ken Caminiti
29. Eddie Yost
30. Robin Ventura
31. Billy Nash
32. Ron Cey
33. Denny Lyons
34. Bill Bradley
35. Heinie Zimmerman
36. Larry Gardner
37. Art Devlin
38. Matt Williams
39. Buddy Bell
40. Lave Cross
41. Jimmy Williams
42. Fred Lindstrom
43. Bill Madlock
44. Harry Steinfeldt
45. HoJo
46. George Kell
47. Harlond Clift
48. Tim Wallach
49. Carney Lansford
50. Bill Joyce

You know Lansford is a very good comp for Kell. High-average, not much power, not great defensively, won a batting title. Ditto Madlock. They are all on each other's bb-ref comp lists.

While we're at it, I'll make a list too. I place Evans and Nettles a lot higher than the previous two lists.

Easy choices

MikeSchmidt
GeorgeBrett
EddieMathews
WadeBoggs

Clearly qualified

DarrellEvans
RonSanto
FrankBaker
GraigNettles
BrooksRobinson
StanHack

Good candidates

BobElliott
HeinieGroh
KenBoyer
BuddyBell
JimmyCollins

Real good players, but not HoM

RonCey
LaveCross
SalBando
HarlondClift
RobinVentura
JohnMcGraw
PieTraynor
TimWallach
LarryGardner
GeorgeKell
AlRosen

hmmm...the preview showed spaces between the names.

That's some serious peaking sunnyday, wow. To have Al Rosen ahead of Darrell Evans and Graig Nettles? Wow.

What hurts the modern guys is just that there are so many of them. Rosen was arguably the #2 3B of the '50s. What were Evans and Nettles during their primes? Certainly not #2.

I mean, I at least have Nettles ahead of Toby Harrah, unlike the good Doctor.

Where many of these almost indistinguishable players rank will depend to a large degree on whether a voter cares about positional dominance--e.g. All-Star seasons versus his real competitors for that honor. I consider that. So to me, Pie Traynor had more positional dominance than the vast majority of the modern guys. Not that that is the end of the analysis, but it's an important part. Along with peaking.

Admit it, you LOVE Toby Harrah!!!

So to me, Pie Traynor had more positional dominance than the vast majority of the modern guys.

As long as Beckwith and Jud Wilson weren't in the same league, of course. :-) Seriously, ggod point, Marc.

I have a feeling that the third basemen of the second half of the 20th Century will be just as overrated as the third basemen before them were underrated.

I have a feeling that the third basemen of the second half of the 20th Century will be just as overrated as the third basemen before them were underrated.

If by that you mean some voters, such as myself, will think that Darrell Evans is an obvious HoMer and that Graig Nettles is a very strong candidate, then yes.

What were Evans and Nettles during their primes? Certainly not #2.

Well, say that Schmidt and Brett are the top third basemen of the 1970s. Nettles and Evans are surely #3 and #4, yes?

In a 24-26 team environment, that's the equivalent of being #2-#3 in a 16-team environment.

For third basemen whose primes fall between 1970 and 1985 (Brooks Robinson and Ron Santo count as pre-1970, Wade Boggs and Paul Molitor get counted as post-1985), I'd say the future looks like this:

Shoo-ins: Schmidt, Brett
Solid HoMer: Da. Evans
Good Candidates: Nettles, B. Bell
Borderline: Cey (he's got a nice peak)

It was a great era for third-basemen.

Shoo-ins: Schmidt, Brett
Solid HoMer: Da. Evans

No arguments there, Chris.

I'll leave the other guys outside (though I am a big Graig Nettles fan).

I am a WS guy, and by it, Nettles doesn't have much of a peak. WARP sees him much more favorably.

Harrah, since it was mentioned, has a higher WS peak, but isn't a great WARP candidate compared to Nettles. Harrah does lead him in EQA by .281 to .272, but Nettles's defense is much, much, much better. Of course, as I've just said over on the SS discussion, WARP tends to exaggerate.

OPS+ sees their offense similarly to EQA: Harrah 114, Nettles 110.

Actually I met Toby Harrah, and I like Toby Harrah. I don't love Toby Harrah. Though I once dated a girl who did. I mean that literally, and literally.

Muddying up the waters you've got not only Harrah, however, but also guys like Ken Boyer and Sal Bando who will be in the backlog when their time comes, plus guys like Ventura and Wallach lurking just around the corner. Not to even mention Matt Williams, Madlock, HoJo and Lansford.

Yes a great era for 3Bs. Which is a different thing than an era of great 3Bs. More like the 1880s was a great era for pitchers.

Yes a great era for 3Bs. Which is a different thing than an era of great 3Bs. More like the 1880s was a great era for pitchers.

That was the point of my post #21, Marc. All I'm suggesting is that the environment post-WWII (and primarilly the seventies and eighties) for third basemen may have been more conducive for impressive stats than in earlier generations.

That was the point of my post #21, Marc. All I'm suggesting is that the environment post-WWII (and primarilly the seventies and eighties) for third basemen may have been more conducive for impressive stats than in earlier generations.

Any particular reason for thinking that, besides the circular logic (there's a lot of 3B candidates, therefore it must have been a good time for 3Bmen to put up numbers)? We've seen odd clusters of great players before (Catchers in the 30s, for example).

Hartnett-Cochrane-Dickey can be a coincidence. Gehrig-Foxx-Greenberg can be a coincidence.

The absolute dearth of "great 3B," or rather of 3B with "great resumes," pre-1950 and the myriad of them afte 1970 is too many to be coincidence. The game changed. My theory is this. Managers no longer wanted their 3B to be a SS, they wanted them to be a 1B, and our defensive measures aren't sophisticated enough, so we prefer the 1B-type hitter further up the defensive spectrum to a SS-type hitter moved down. And so when the managers prefer the same thing we do, well, then we get lots of candidates.

Devin:

What Marc said.

Schmidt, Brett, Mathews, Evans, Boggs, Molitor, and Santo (I assume Robinson, too) will definitely be on my ballot, so it's not like I will be giving third basemen from this era short shrift. :-) Taking into account the number of season we're talking about here, that's a greater amount of players that will get a vote from me than the pre-Mathews "hot corner" guys.

Managers no longer wanted their 3B to be a SS, they wanted them to be a 1B, and our defensive measures aren't sophisticated enough, so we prefer the 1B-type hitter further up the defensive spectrum to a SS-type hitter moved down. And so when the managers prefer the same thing we do, well, then we get lots of candidates

Possibly. But what if the managers' philosophy meant that the guys playing third back then were just not very great baseball players? Take Aurelio Rodriguez. If you moved his career back 40 years, would he thereby become one of the all-time greats?

If you moved his career back 40 years, would he thereby become one of the all-time greats?

I don't think so. I think you'd get Pie Traynor lite. Ossie Bluege or something like that. But if you move Bluege to the 70s, you might get Lansford, or you might get a utility infielder, or you might get a 2B. That may be too harsh though.

Along those lines...if Sewell had played in the 1970s or 1980s, would he have moved from SS to 3B? Or from SS to 2B?


Sunnyday,

Agreed on the all the Boyer, Wallach, Bando Williams, Bonilla guys. They are all almost indistinguishable from one another.

>But what if the managers' philosophy meant that the guys playing third back then were just not very great baseball players?

That's exactly what I meant. The profile itself was faulty so when the manager found the guy he craved, well, he couldn't be very good. The managers filtered out guys who would have been more valuable overall because they had that one killer (at the time) weakness, like picking the bunt and throwing the guy out, or whatever.

Now, I'm not saying that every single mother's son of a 3B sucked, just most. And taking Pie Traynor as a e.g., I probably have him higher than most around #40, but nowhere near my ballot or PHoM. I supported Heinie Groh, however, and Stan Hack is among my next 5 currently eligible HoMers.

Along those lines...if Sewell had played in the 1970s or 1980s, would he have moved from SS to 3B? Or from SS to 2B?

I'll go with the latter.

Possibly. But what if the managers' philosophy meant that the guys playing third back then were just not very great baseball players?

We're talking too many decades for that to be the case, Bob, but you might be right post-Deadball Era. Mangers might have been able to have utilized the Schmidt-Mathews model during the beginning of the Lively Ball Era, but managers were still wedded with the strategies of the previous decades. I haven't done the analysis, but I bet you can trace just about when the contemporary third baseman comes into view by the gradual reduction of bunts from 1920 to 1950.

The odds of a Harmon Killerbrew or Bobby Bonilla playing 3B during the Deadball Era are about slim to none. A team just couldn't absorb all of the muffed bunts that they would created. In fact, they probably wouldn't have played 1B either since that was more of a defensive position back then. Some where in the OF would be my guess.

However, all of this does notmean that 3B pre 1950 were great baseball players. Maybe teh Killebrew's or the Bonilla's of the world would not have played 3B ourside of their era but doesn't that still give them more value than a guy like Pie Traynor (well, maybe nto Bonilla)? I want the best baseball players ever, not the best guys at each postion in each era, one reason I do not vote for Jake Beckley and other 1B of his era. If it was a weak crop of players being teh best doesn't get you anywhere near the Hall of Merit. Are we going to punish one of McGwire, Thomas, and Bagwell for not being in the top 2 1B of their era?

Maybe teh Killebrew's or the Bonilla's of the world would not have played 3B ourside of their era but doesn't that still give them more value than a guy like Pie Traynor (well, maybe nto Bonilla)?

Absolutely. I'll have Killerbrew high up on my ballot when he's eligible, while Traynor may possibly make the bottom of my ballot someday, but that's highly doubtful.

I want the best baseball players ever, not the best guys at each postion in each era, one reason I do not vote for Jake Beckley and other 1B of his era.

Beckley was the best first baseman of the Inside Baseball Era, but he has never made an "elect me" spot on my ballot (though he's usually in the middle of my ballot). So I agree that even though the analytical systems underrate first basemen of that era, that doesn't mean that Beckley and Chance were Gehrig or Brouthers, either. Not even close.

Are we going to punish one of McGwire, Thomas, and Bagwell for not being in the top 2 1B of their era?

Mark, did I not have Gehrig, Foxx, and Greenberg in "elect me" spots when they were eligible? That should answer your question about the other three. :-)

Now, how Palmiero (disregarding his steroid troubles for now), Clark, and McGriff will do on my ballot is a totally different question.

I see Kell as a pretty good match for Traynor on offense. Those of you above with overall rankings have Traynor many places ahead of Kell. I can see two reasons for that: that Traynor was a better defensive player, and that third basemen of Traynor's time weren't expected to hit as much as third basemen of Kell's time.

Traynor is not on my ballot, so I'm not going to worry about exactly where to slot in Kell.

Regarding Beckley, since he was brought up - who were the other hitters of his era that would have had 3200 or so hits (adjusting for schedule) with great power that aren't in the Hall of Merit?

By my reckoning, adjusted to 162 games:

Jimmy Ryan 2925 hits
George Van Haltren 2943 hits

A bit short of Beckley's 3200 hits, but they're in the neighborhood.

Let's accept for a minute that WS so underrates players on poor teams or defensive 1B or guys names Beckley that we should just throw it out the window.

How does Beckley's career look on WARP compared to some of his key unelected contemporaries?

Here's a little chart that allows you to use your own judgment as to what kinds of seasons should count as big HoM chits. I've projected all WARP1 scores to 154 games and classified them by seasons over 6, seasons over 7, seasons over 8, seasons over 9, and seasons over 10. I have purposefully stopped the chart at 10 even though some of the other players have 11, 12, and even 13 WARP seasons, but have also left out the useful seasons in the 4's and 5's. There are no league quality adjustments.

Here goes:

Beckley 0/1/x8/10/12
Leach 2/4/x5/x7/10
GVH 4/7/13/13/13
Ryan 4/5/x7/x8/11

and, for kicks:

Roush 2/2/x7/10/12

Sure makes Van Haltren look good, doesn't it?

Andrew, your post (in which I'm not sure I understand the table) assumes WARP's a remotely accurate measure for 1890s baseball, for which it was never calibrated, and that it's accurate in valuing 1890s 1B, who had a lot more work to do than today or in the 30s.

Chris Cobb has it; Beckley's GvH or Ryan, plus about 250 hits, plus a more active defensive position. All 3 have far more career than the guys we're currently inducting.

41 posts (counting mine) on the George Kell thread. I wonder: is that an HOM record for a player who will likely not get within spitting distance of anyone's ballot?

I wonder: is that an HOM record for a player who will likely not get within spitting distance of anyone's ballot?

Of course, how many of them really deal with Kell? :-)

Ahhhhhh; now we're getting somewhere.
As an interested observer and occasional posting friend of the GVH, Ryan and Duffy troika and an advocate of Jake Beckley as well, I am greatly encouraged to see that an ever growing number of HoM voters are beginning to realize that these four worthy candidates have been "short-sheeted" by the electorate.
I know the Hall was eager to elect early (1870's and prior) candidates and seemingly went to great lengths to extrapolate for guys like Pike to qualify.
Logic says that if you can justify electing Lip Pike (637 hits in organized ball) you've got to be able to see your way clear to putting these 4 worthy players into the hall.

McCullen's Law:

Any Hall of Merit thread, if it lasts long enough, will eventually turn into a Jake Beckley discussion.

Any Hall of Merit thread, if it lasts long enough, will eventually turn into a Jake Beckley discussion.

:-)

I would amend that to say that any HOM thread so long as it lasts long enough AND KARLMAGNUS IS INVOLVED, will turn into a Jake Beckley discussion.

I barely touched this one; it came apart in my hand :-)

Another "stretch" if on any ballots IMO, but that's just me

B;-)mp

Are you suggesting that George Kell is a better home than Lou Brock for 1897 lineup data?