An Outsider's Look at the National Baseball Hall of Fame: Ranking the Hall of Famers and How to Fix Cooperstown, #1

By Matthew Woods

A lifelong baseball enthusiast and student examines each of the current Hall of Famers according to a ranking system he created and discusses how to fix the Hall of Fame.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Matthew Woods
• Release date: Feb 25, 2017
• ISBN: 9781386876809

Matthew Woods

I'm a nearly 30-year student of the game of baseball.  I watch every game of every season.  I read all about the game and go to the Hall of Fame several times a year.  I have the utmost respect for every player past and present and have always been fascinated by the history of the game.  Baseball is the greatest thing on Earth and I want to share its joy with everyone.

Book preview

Introduction

I began working on the idea of ranking and separating the Baseball Hall of Fame players back in the summer of 2012.  My methodology went through many iterations, stats used and dropped, differing weights, etc. until I found one that just seemed to work.  At one point that summer, a friend of mine said Who are you to make this decision?  And that caused me to pause.  Why should my opinion matter when it comes to something outside of my technical expertise?  I have a Bachelor’s Degree in chemistry and a Master’s Degree in education, and except for the mathematics of chemistry, neither of those really give me more backing than any writers that are in the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA) when it comes to baseball players and/or statistics.  I haven’t played baseball on any sort of professional level since Little League.  I do watch a ton of games and read about a lot more.  I also read and study new statistical models for analyzing players and their performances.  In fact, I probably read more on baseball in a week than I read about chemistry while in college.  I have read and studied every Hall of Famer’s stat sheet on both Baseball-Reference and Fangraphs about fifty times each.  I also go to the Baseball Hall of Fame several times a year with my father, which is always an event I look forward to.  I always walk amongst the plaques and am incredibly humbled.  I’ll get into this more later, but I wanted to give my baseball background.  Let’s get back to the question my friend posed earlier Who am I to make this decision?  I eventually answered my friend similarly to how I will answer it here.  First, I’m not making any decisions about who should or should not be inducted.  I appreciate what each player that has been inducted did in his career and their place in baseball history.  My goal with this was to both have fun with numbers in a context that matters to me (that being the Baseball Hall of Fame) and maybe change the way a couple of people think.  It was not and never will be to approach the Hall of Fame and tell them that Player X should be booted and Player Y should be included.  That’s not only disrespectful to the game and the individual players, but to the families of the player and the entire voting process.  While I may not agree with the selection of some players, and will explain why in the following pages, I will not ever recommend their removal from the Hall of Fame.

To finish my answer, I would say that I am a baseball enthusiast who has studied the game as much as an outsider could possibly and has backed up many thoughts with statistics instead of vague clichés like You had to see him play or He was the most feared hitter of his time.  That doesn’t make my opinion any more or less valid than anyone’s, including the BBWAA because we are all humans and all baseball fans.  I may not cover the game for a living, but I spend most of my living researching it.

The other thing I wanted to address in this opening is why I decided to do this.  And, as I previously stated, the Hall of Fame matters.  It is a symbol of something to strive to, it represents true greatness and the triumph of the human spirit over adversity, in terms of both physical ability and mental toughness.  When you think of these players, you shouldn’t be caught up in a morality debate or a statistical argument, you should just think that he (or she) was one of the most important and influential people in the history of the game and never made the game into a total farce.  It’s important that, while we still respect the fact that these players are human beings and not perfect (apart from Stan Musial), we should have no reason to question their numbers or the legitimacy of their numbers or their abilities.  That’s why, and I say this up front with the fact that Mark McGwire was my favorite player ever, I’m ok with players that have been proven of steroid use not getting into the Hall of Fame.  But, there must be actual proof to keep them out.  Suspicion to me isn’t strong enough.  As I said, the Hall of Fame matters.  It isn’t just some museum in a small town in New York that has lost its meaning as some have said.  It’s what baseball is all about, both in the past (as baseball probably has the richest history of any professional sport) and what we will look to in the future.  That’s why I did this.  So, without further ado, let’s talk about this Outsider’s Look at the Hall of Fame.

Methodology

My methods are quite simple.  There are three main parts to my study.  First, I look at how a player compared to his direct peers.  Say Player A was a second baseman for most of his career and played in 1572 games from 1950-1964 (let’s add in the fact that he lost a little bit of time to Korea).  Well, we know what the average second baseman would have done in those years in those games played, so we can find out just how much better than the average second baseman he really was.  Ditto, we can know how much better than the average position player he was at that time as well.  Part 2 is looking at how he compares (both from a career standpoint and on a per-year basis) to his fellow Hall of Fame second basemen.  And finally, part 3 is comparing him (again career and per year) to all position players in the Hall of Fame.  I adjusted all the scores to be on the same level, and adjusted final scores for positions.  Thanks to the wonders of Microsoft Excel, this works out quickly. 

As far as which stats I used, I picked a blend of traditional and advanced metrics.  I believe the best way to judge a player is a meld of both, since some players were voted in solely due to a traditional stat (e.g. hits) versus what I see happening more in the present and future where players will be voted in based on advanced metrics (such as on-base percentage).  I weighed everything equally, except for defensive stats (which I made weighted heavier at defensive oriented positions) due to the scarcity of defensive stats. 

I’d like to re-stress that this was never meant to, at any time, imply that some players should be removed from the Hall of Fame.  Yes, there are players that probably shouldn’t have been inducted, or rank poorly due to their numbers coming at a high offensive era.  That doesn’t change the fact that most players never get a second thought about being inducted and it’s an honor that no one should remove from the ones that are already in there.  Doing so would be a massive insult to the player and his family, as well as to all the voters and fans over the years that saw that player play and enjoyed watching him.  However, at the same time, just because a mistake was made once doesn’t mean it needs to be repeated and that’s the hope of this study. 

With all that out of the way, let’s look at the rankings of all 220 players currently inducted in the Baseball Hall of Fame.

#220- Frank Chance

Year Inducted: 1946 (Veteran’s Committee)

Score: -38.7

`Frank Chance comes out last in these rankings.  Does this mean he’s the worst player in the Hall of Fame?  As a player, probably, but that has more to do with whom he is getting compared to rather than anything about him.  Does it mean that he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame?  No, and both positions can be held easily.

Chance hit .296/.394/.394 (Batting Average/On-Base Percentage/Slugging Percentage, also known as his slash-line) in his career, which was good for a solid 137 wRC+ (weighted Runs Created plus).  wRC+ measures how well you create runs against the league average (non-pitching players), and adjusts for both park-effects and run scoring environment.  Every point above 100 is another percentage point better than league average.  It’s one of the best ways to compare batters across eras.  And, as a hitter, Chance was good.  A career .394 OBP is great, and despite his low overall SLG of .394, he still fared well against his peers.

The problems with Chance being inducted as a player are two-fold.  The first problem is obvious; he didn’t hit for power at a typical power position.  Chance had a grand total of 20 homers in his career.  Despite playing most of his career in the Dead Ball Era where pitchers dominated, that was still good for only 76th place in that time frame, tied with such luminaries as Freddie Parent and Johnny Kling.  Normally, that wouldn’t be so bad except for the fact that he is a first baseman, and is going to be compared to a bunch of guys who were much better hitters than him.  Lou Gehrig, playing roughly 10 years after Chance retired, would end up with 493 homers.  That’s more than 24 times what Chance hit.  And it just kept going up from there, with players like Willie McCovey, Stan Musial and Harmon Killebrew each hitting at least 475 long balls, and even guys like Hank Greenberg and Johnny Mize, who lost prime years to WWII, hitting over 300.  Chance has literally no chance when compared to them.  Yes, Chance compares very well to first basemen of his era (leads them in WAR for the years he played), and was a very valuable player.  But the average first baseman in his career hit .270/.327/.358 so it wasn’t a high bar to clear.

Chance’s lack of power is not the main reason why he comes out so low.  The main reason is that he only played in 1286 games, and it’s very hard to have a huge impact on the game if you don’t play very often.  Chance initially came up as a backup catcher, which probably wasn’t that fun of a job back then.  With poor protection for his hands, especially from foul tips, he often had broken fingers and that limited his playing time.  In his first 5 seasons, he averaged about 63 games a season, and since he only played in parts of 17 seasons, that’s roughly a third of his career.  The Cubs changed catchers in 1903, which forced Chance to first base, and he could finally start playing regularly.  He played in over 100 games in each of the next 6 years, and performed well.  Yet, he still got hurt a lot.  Chance would crowd the plate, and as a result got hit by a pitch at a decent clip (137 times in 5099 PA), often in the head.  This resulted in blood clots in his brain, and required some intense surgery (especially for the early 1900’s).  While his surgery was successful, he had pretty much lost his ability to play every day, if at all.  While in the hospital, the Cubs eventually released (which, even though he was upset at their management and the Cubs and Yankees were in discussions about him, was still kind of a jerk-move) him prior to the 1913 season, which allowed him to sign with the Yankees to be a player-manager for the Yankees.  Unfortunately, Chance was only able to play in a total of 13 games for the Yankees, and resigned during the 1914 season.

Chance, as just a player, doesn’t have a great resume for the Hall of Fame.  On the other hand, Chance the baseball lifer does.  He was an incredibly successful as a manager, leading the Cubs to their first World Series Championships in 1907 and 1908, along with piloting them to a record 116-win season.  While he didn’t manage for long, he certainly had a major impact on their franchise, and wound up with over 900 wins as a manager while only managing in 11 seasons. People who have success in multiple careers in the game (managing, scouting, front office work, broadcasting, etc.) of baseball have a spot in the Hall of Fame.  The entire body of Chance’s work deserves enshrinement, but as a player he leaves something to be desired.

#219- Tommy McCarthy, RF

Year Inducted: 1946 (Veterans Committee)

Score: -24.3

Tommy McCarthy was a selection to the Hall of Fame that, per Wikipedia, was instantly controversial.  If ever there were a player that was inducted that someone wanted to use as evidence to the Hall of Fame being broken, this is probably the guy.

McCarthy played in the early years of the game, and put up a slash line of .292/.364/.375 for a wRC+ of 105.  5% better than league average.  That’s barely acceptable.  He did make up for it, slightly, by being a force on the bases in his best years.  From 1888-1894, McCarthy stole no fewer than 37 bases a season en-route to a career total of 468.  Along with fellow outfielder and future Hall of Famer Hugh Duffy, he helped form what was known as the Heavenly Twins outfield for Boston.  Duffy and McCarthy became known for their cunning outfield play, while Duffy was a better hitter and McCarthy a better runner.  They combined to lead the Boston team to dominance from 1892 until 1894.  While Duffy still had some good years left in him, McCarthy started a massive decline.  Mostly this was due to his drinking habits.  McCarthy and Duffy joined together to open a joint bar and bowling establishment in Boston.  It was here that, per SABR Bios McCarthy enjoyed bending an elbow with the Beaneaters fans who patronized the establishment. But the venture did little to enhance his baseball skills and initiated the weight gain that would plague him for the remainder of his playing career, and life thereafter.  McCarthy was soon out of shape and out of the league.

McCarthy’s career accomplishments are not spectacular.  He did manage to score over 100 runs in seven consecutive seasons, and twice managed to drive in over 100 runs, but his numbers just aren’t there overall. He should be lauded for his ability to run the bases before he started boozing and helping to invent some new styles of play.  Monte Ward credited McCarthy with developing the hit-and-run play (not sure how much of that is to be developed, but fair’s fair), and was one of the first to use fake throws to try to catch runners trying to advance (and since McCarthy originally came up as a pitcher, he had the arm strength to help get them out), as well as letting shallow fly balls fall to catch the lead runner on a force-out.  The last one there means that he is almost singlehandedly responsible for the Infield Fly Rule.

While there isn’t much to warrant his induction, he is still an interesting read.  A lot of these players are, which is what makes baseball so great.

#218- George Kelly, 1B

Year Inducted: 1973 (Veteran’s Committee)

Score: -7.5

"Statistics can tell you a lot about a baseball player. In the case of George Kelly, they don’t say nearly enough."

That quote is from Kelly’s SABR Bio page.  In fact, it’s the very first two sentences of their article on him.  When the group of people who have dedicated their lives to advancing baseball analytics and avoiding the eye-test and using their perceptions of a player to judge them says that about a guy in the Hall of Fame, it’s something to take notice of.  When they start their biography on him that way, it’s sad.

The purpose of this project wasn’t at any time to say that someone should be removed from the Hall of Fame.  There have been some lackluster selections from both the Veterans Committee and the BBWAA, but that will always happen with humans in charge.  And, even though this is almost entirely a statistics-based ranking, it is important to recognize that some players’ place in history transcend their numbers.  A player like Jackie Robinson is of immense importance to what the game means, that it doesn’t matter what his numbers are, he should be inducted and placed on the highest pedestal.  A more modern example is Ichiro.  While he’s having a great season right now and approaching 3000 hits for his career, he doesn’t need them to justify either his place in history (being the first truly successful Japanese position player that found success at both the MLB and Japanese levels is astonishing and culturally significant), nor to ensure his inclusion into the Hall of Fame when he retires.  There is a place in Cooperstown for those who were good players, but were important beyond their numbers.  George Kelly just isn’t one of them.

In his career, Highpockets slashed .297/.342/.452 which was good for a wRC+ of only 109.  He gained fame for being a clutch player in his career, driving in over 100 runs 5 times en-route to putting up over 1000 of them overall.  Legendary manager John McGraw said that there was no one else on his roster that he would want up in a big situation than Kelly.  As far as praise goes, that’s probably as high as it gets in baseball.  At the time of his retirement, Kelly ranked 45th all-time in RBIs, which isn’t so bad considering the game was just hitting its stride as one being built on the home run, rather than stolen bases and performing the hit and run.

Speaking of the home run, Kelly smacked 148 of them in his career, which was good for 18th of all time at that point.  That’s impressive.  Equally impressive was his defense.  Kelly scores very high fielding marks, from both advanced stats (his Fielding Runs are quite good for a first baseman) and people that watched him play.  Frankie Frisch, a long-time teammate of Kelly’s, thought him to be the best defensive first baseman he ever saw.

Kelly, was a selection by the Frisch/Terry coalition by the Veterans Committee that was greeted with cries of cronyism by many fans and historians.  Even the BBWAA thought that the Veterans Committee should be more careful in selecting members.  Which makes sense, seeing as how when he was on the BBWAA ballot, Kelly never received more than 5 votes and never even broke 2% on the ballot (75% is needed for induction).  Even with all the arguments against many other inductees from that period, it’s easy to see a lot of them as having greatness, but not for long enough due to injuries. 

#217- Chick Hafey, LF

Year Inducted: 1971 (Veterans Committee)

Score: -3.8

There are some players that score low simply due to not playing much.  It’s not a coincidence that three of the bottom four in this ranking all played in fewer than 1300 games in their careers.  Of those three, Chick Hafey is probably the best, deserving on talent but not on results due to unfortunate injuries.  Let’s see what Hafey has in his favor for induction.

In his brief career, Hafey slashed .317/.372/.526, which was good for a wRC+ of 132.  Hafey was a consistent force for the Cardinals and Reds, helping guide the Cardinals to championships in both 1926 and 1931.  From 1927 until the end of his career, he posted a wRC+ between 109 and 159.  Unlike Frank Chance, whose numbers were mostly based on OBP and steals, or Tommy McCarthy whose numbers were based on...something....Hafey was able to hit for power.  From 1927 until 1931 he hit between 16 and 29 homers a season, and slugged no lower than .569.  One thing Hafey didn’t do much of was drive in runs.  His career high of 125 is impressive, but he only topped 100 three times, and 90 one other time.  He also didn’t score a lot of runs (which makes some sense since he doesn’t score highly as a base runner), which make his overall numbers suffer some when compared to other left fielders.

In the field, he was highly praised for his arm.  He ended his career with over 100 outfield assists, and several players always spoke very highly of his reflexes and accuracy with his arm.  More advanced stats have him pegged as a slightly negative defender, which goes along with him not being a great baserunner, so he probably couldn’t get to as many balls in play, and his arm must have balanced it out to a degree.  Overall, the talent and ability were always there for Hafey to be amongst the greatest in the game.

Unfortunately, he suffered from injuries quite frequently in his career.  In 1926 he got hit by pitches in the head so often that he ended up hurting his sinuses and needing corrective surgery.  The injuries also damaged his eyesight, forcing him to wear glasses (Interestingly, only two people wear glasses on their Hall of Fame plaques, including Hafey).  Only twice in his career did Hafey ever play in more than 140 games, and two other times was he able to play in 130.  His vision and sinuses remained problematic over his career, but in 1933 and 1934 (when he set career highs in games played) it seemed to subside somewhat. In 1935, though, he developed a bad case of the flu, which nearly forced him into retirement.  After sitting out the 1936 season, he tried to comeback in 1937, but was only able to play in 89 games with middling results.  After contract issues with the Reds front office, he decided to retire before the 1938 season.

Hafey’s induction is one of several that were met with instant criticism.  Many fans and critics thought that he simply hadn’t played enough, or wasn’t nearly dominant enough in his brief career to warrant induction.  The Veteran’s Committee had some of his former teammates leading it, especially Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry, and many selections during their tenure were often reviled and criticized with complaints about favoritism.  Still, many think Hafey was worthy because of his brief dominance.  Unfortunately, baseball is filled with players who started great and got injured (Don Mattingly and Tony Conigliaro for example) or just sort of fizzled out.  His injuries limited his greatness, it happens, but statistically he probably wasn’t a great pick for induction.

#216- Lloyd Waner, CF

Year Inducted: 1967 (Veteran’s Committee)

Score: 13.2

Lloyd and Paul Waner were two brothers who played baseball between 1920 and 1945, including playing together for the Pittsburgh Pirates.  Paul, the older brother and nicknamed Big Poison, played right field, while his younger brother Lloyd (a.k.a. Little Poison), patrolled center field.  Paul is the better of the two brothers.  He ended his career with over 3000 hits and earned enshrinement into the Hall in 1952. Lloyd is most remembered for being someone unworthy of enshrinement.  Is that an accurate thought?

Little Poison played in parts of 18 seasons and slashed .316/.353/.393 for a wRC+ of 99 in nearly 2000 games.  To Waner’s credit, he racked up quite a few hits (had over 2400), as well as quite a few extra base hits.  Despite only having 27 home runs (which is still more than some Hall of Famers) Waner did record nearly 300 doubles and over 100 triples, so he provided a little bit of power.  It would be difficult to credit all his extra base hits to speed since he stole a grand total of 67 bases in his career and Fangraphs rates him as a mostly average runner, despite many reports in the day of him being a feared runner and having dangerous speed.

Waner was primarily a leadoff hitter in his career, so he didn’t drive in many runs (only 598, with a top mark of 74), but he scored a lot of runs (1201, including a league leading 133 in his rookie year).  For his first few seasons, he seemed like he might have had a chance at a legit Hall of Fame career.  For his first six seasons, he slashed .340/.378/.432, even though it was only good for a wRC+ of 109, it was still a very good line.  Unfortunately, in 1933, at the age of 27, he started to decline some, with his average dropping from .333 down to .276, and his wRC+ going from 115 to 78.  This basically marked the end of Waner’s chances of being a great player, as he struggled through 3 years of below league average production.  He would bounce back some, posting another 3 years of wRC+ above 100 (only ranging from 104-107 though), but it was clear that his best years were behind him, hitting his final homer in 1938 and playing through some down years until the end of his career in 1945.

Lloyd Waner was eventually inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1967 by the Veterans Committee.  And, it’s possible to see why he was considered.  He did hit for a decent average, and was well regarded defensively in center field.  But, the average center fielder in his career hit .291, so his career average of .316 isn’t great.  The average center fielder had an OPS of .768 in Waner’s career, which was much better than Waner’s .747.  Waner’s career mostly fizzled out after a very good start.  It’s unfortunate, but that’s baseball.  It’s possible that there were some on the Veteran’s Committee that voted for him because of his brother (although there isn’t any evidence of his brother campaigning for Lloyd’s induction), it isn’t likely the main reason. It is more likely that people on the committee just looked at his batting average, thought it meant he was a great player, and voted him in.  Certainly, nothing like the inductions that were covered in the last couple of entries, and several more will be seen in the next few players.

#215- Johnny Evers, 2B

Year Inducted: 1946 (Veteran’s Committee)

Score: 32.1

Johnny Evers, along with Frank Chance and Joe Tinker are forever linked in history due to anchoring the Cubs to their first World Series Championship teams in 1907 and 1908, as well as being the subject of a famous baseball poem, which you can find in the appendix of this book.  It makes all the sense in the world that all three were inducted into Cooperstown in the same year.  It also makes sense that none of them were good picks.

In his career, Evers hit .270/.356/.334 for a wRC+ of 109.  Offensively, Evers wasn’t much to write home about.  He collected only a dozen homers over parts of 18 seasons, but still managed a decent OBP for a middle infielder.  Evers’ main gift offensively was being a successful sacrifice guy (he had over 200 in his career), and being a decent runner.  Evers swiped 324 bases in his career and legged out 70 triples, both very respectable numbers.  Where Evers made his name was his defense.  Evers is probably the first player to appear on these rankings that was almost solely inducted due to his defense.  And, to be fair, he was great defensively.  Fangraphs has him worth +127 runs above average defensively, putting him among some of the best second basemen in Cooperstown.

So, what about one-dimensional fielding players?  They certainly have value in the game.  Managers always want someone that can come in the late innings and solidify your defense at a key position, or even hold his own during the game.  But, as far as the Hall of Fame goes, they must supply something offensively to be worthy of induction.

Ozzie Smith is a good example.  Ozzie is typically thought of as one of the players in Cooperstown who got solely in based on his glove work.  While there is some truth to that (he is the best shortstop ever defensively, and probably the best defender ever), it isn’t like he did nothing with the bat.  He had over 2000 hits and stole over 500 bases.  It wasn’t as much as other shortstops like Cal Ripken or Derek Jeter, but it was still enough so the overall package was a Hall of Fame worthy player.  Evers though?  Not as much.  Why was he inducted?  The poem is the most likely explanation, but it’s tough to discount his achievement with the Cubs great run in the early 1900’s.

#214- Ross Youngs, RF

Year Inducted: 1972 (Veterans Committee)

Score: 42.3

In the early 1970’s, several players were inducted into the Hall of Fame by the Veterans Committee that led to the Committee having their powers reduced.  This is because, as was mentioned in the Chick Hafey and George Kelly entries, they inducted many players from the Giants and Cardinals who were seen by the general populace as being substandard.  Ross Youngs, who played all 10 of his years for the New York Giants, was one of those.  Unlike Kelly, who was never dominant, Youngs showed some dominance in his short career.

Before his career ended, Youngs was on his way to a Hall of Fame career.  Youngs slashed an impressive .322/.399/.441 for a wRC+ of 135, providing a consistent offensive force for the NY Giants.  He may have only hit 42 home runs at a time when home run rates were going up (thanks in no small part to the other right fielder playing in New York at the time.), but he supplemented that by hitting 236 doubles and 93 triples.  He also scored over 800 runs in his brief career.

The problem is that because it was so short, he’d have to be Koufax-like dominant.  And, his career numbers just aren’t there.  A right fielder only hitting 42 home runs would have needed well over 2000 hits in such a short time to be considered great, or star defensively (he wasn’t) or steal a lot of bases (he didn’t).

Unfortunately, he couldn’t extend his career beyond 10 years.  In 1926, Youngs contracted Bright’s disease, which was what the 1920’s called kidney inflammation.  He passed away from the disease at the age of 30, after the 1927 season.  His former manager, John McGraw, along with former teammates, championed his cause for the Hall of Fame, but the BBWAA never gave him more than 22% of the vote.

And then, Bill Terry and Frankie Frisch became heads of the Veterans Committee and voted in a bunch of their teammates.  And, like Hafey and Kelly, Youngs was one of those teammates.  And therefore, it is a good thing that the Veterans Committee has been changed since then.  Obviously Youngs was talented and he had a high average, but he just didn’t do enough.  Had he not passed away when he did, he probably would have had a Hall of Fame worthy career, or at least a better case than what he currently has.  The voters shouldn’t vote based off what probably would have happened; they should only consider what did occur.  Youngs was talented, very good, taken before his time.  Sadly, he just didn’t do enough in that time to be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

#213- Ray Schalk, Catcher

Year Inducted: 1955 (Veterans Committee)

Score: 47.2

Catchers play the toughest position on the diamond.  Not only are they counted on to be a fifth infielder (backing up the corner bases on throws, for instance), but also anchor the pitching staff, call the game, throw base runners out trying to steal, frame pitches, block pitches in the dirt and act as the field general.  And, while most of these tasks were around for all of baseball (framing has become a recent issue, and they didn’t always back up throws in the infield), the position has changed some over the years.  The early years were incredibly tough on catchers.  The equipment wasn’t nearly as good as it currently is, and catchers had to deal with a lot of trick pitches.  Pitches like the emery ball, spitball and others weren’t outlawed until the 1920 season (and some pitchers like Burleigh Grimes could still throw it since they had no other pitches), which caused a decent number of wild pitches and passed balls.

It was the toughest time to be a catcher, and the one considered to be the best defender of the time was Ray Schalk.  In additional to being a tough position to play, catcher’s defense is incredibly difficult to quantify.  As such, Schalk suffers somewhat in a heavy statistical study.  Still, he was worth nearly 100 runs defensively.  The advanced stats do back up the popular perception from his time.  Even traditional stats show how good he was defensively.  Schalk still, to this day, holds the career record for most double plays and is second in assists for catchers, while having fewer than 100 passed balls in his career.  He also led in career putouts at the time of his retirement (and with the increase in strikeouts, he has been blown away by recent catchers).  He was the best defensive catcher of his time.

Unfortunately, he wasn’t very good offensively.  He slashed .253/.340/.316 for a wRC+ of 88.  His batting average is infamous as being the lowest for any position player in the Hall of Fame.  He did show some power, though.  Despite hitting only 11 home runs, he did manage to leg out 199 doubles and 49 triples to go along with 177 steals (quite impressive for a catcher).  Overall, the advantage that he had defensively was almost entirely given away from his near-nonexistent offense.

Ray Schalk, though, has some importance beyond his numbers.  Schalk was a member of the Chicago White Sox team that threw the 1919 World Series.  Schalk wasn’t ever accused of being complicit in the act, and even agreed with the punishment handed down by then Commissioner Landis on the eight players that were accused of taking the bribe money.  Schalk’s honesty and hard play, both in the World Series of 1919 and following the 1920 season that saw the suspensions handed down, helped the game heal from a near-fatal event.

Following his career (and some years spent as a manager and coach), Schalk spent time as a scout for the Cubs and served as the Assistant Coach for Purdue’s baseball team.  When he finally retired entirely from baseball he was 72 years old, meaning he worked almost non-stop in baseball for over 50 years.  Surely there is a place in Cooperstown for someone that spent half of a century making the game a better experience for everyone involved.  He may not be the best statistically, but that doesn’t take away from his importance in the game’s history.

#212- Freddie Lindstrom, 3B

Year Inducted: 1976 (Veterans Committee)

Score: 50.0

The 1970s were a great time for the Hall of Fame.  Beginning in 1971, the Hall of Fame finally started selecting and inducting members of the Negro Leagues.  This means that longtime baseball legends like Satchel Paige and Josh Gibson were finally getting the recognition that they deserve, and affirming their place among the game’s immortals.  The decade also saw some of the best players of all-time ever being inducted by the BBWAA-including Willie Mays (1979), Mickey Mantle (1974) and Ernie Banks (1977).  And yet, the decade saw some of the worst inductees of all-time, most of them on the back of the Veterans Committee.

While the Veterans Committee’s rules and procedures have changed a lot over the years, the overall mission has remained clear.  To determine the worthiness of players from the early part of the game (19th century), and modern players that the BBWAA may have overlooked for some reason.  They serve as a good check and balance system to ensure deserving candidates don’t get lost in the fold.  The problem comes when either side plays favorites.

Like several other players mentioned, Freddie Lindstrom was voted in by the Frankie Frisch and Bill Terry coalition that voted in several of their teammates.  Each player’s induction was met with criticism and derision by the BBWAA and general populace.  Lindstrom was no exception.

Lindy, like many of the others, wasn’t