I have a another one--Why is Hack Wilson in the HOF?

[DrungoHazewood]

I think if you've got a major MLB record, you deserve to be in the HoF. Maybe Wilson was put in too soon since the record could have been broken in the following years, but I do believe he should be in.

Question...let's say Danny Tartabul (one of Wilson's comps) had knocked in 195 RBI's in 1993, would he be in the HoF?

Even though the rest of his career doesn't warrant it, he'd have one of the big records, so I would put him in.

Really? What's a big record? Do you put Earl Webb in for his 67 doubles, which represents nearly half his career total? Or how about J. Owen Wilson and his 36 triples? Did Ichiro qualify for your Hall the minute he passed Keeler's record for singles? Is Dutch Leonard in the Hall for his 0.96 ERA in 1914, despite that being the only time he ever led any major league in any major category and finished with 139 wins?

Or how about Ned Williamson, who held the single-season HR record for 35 years because he played in a park that was barely over 200 ft down the lines in 1884?

Or Roy Face, for his record winning % the year he went 18-1 in relief?

If Francisco Rodriguez got hit by a bus tomorrow would his 62 saves guarantee him a plaque in Cooeprstown? What about Bobby Thigpen, who held the saves mark for nearly 20 years?

I think a record is just a record and doesn't make a career. Although I've always been a little bitter that Bill Stemmeyer isn't in the Hall for his 63 wild pitches in 1886.

[Frobby]

OPS+ doesn't adjust for the quality of baseball being played at the time. Hack played in a segregated league, with primitive minors, no draft, many MLB-quality players hanging out in the PCL or the IL or the AA, and "scouting" often went something like Connie Mack's brother just happened to see you playing in the Three-I league in Davenport, IA, and that's how you ended up as the A's utility guy for six years.

It's much easier to lead the league in stuff when there's only eight teams in the league, and the league is put together as I described in the last paragraph.

Hack's WARP3: 42.8

Brady's: 45.0

WARP3 adjusts for the quality of the competition.

I don't think you can penalize a guy for playing in the era he played in. Leading the league in HRs 4 times is a good accomplishment no matter when you played. Not that I'm advocating for Hack Wilson, I'm just stating my view on this argument.

[Lucky Jim]

OPS+ doesn't adjust for the quality of baseball being played at the time. Hack played in a segregated league, with primitive minors, no draft, many MLB-quality players hanging out in the PCL or the IL or the AA, and "scouting" often went something like Connie Mack's brother just happened to see you playing in the Three-I league in Davenport, IA, and that's how you ended up as the A's utility guy for six years.

It's much easier to lead the league in stuff when there's only eight teams in the league, and the league is put together as I described in the last paragraph.

Hack's WARP3: 42.8

Brady's: 45.0

WARP3 adjusts for the quality of the competition.

So, in essence, anything before 1955 or so is pretty much heavily discounted? I'm with Frobby.

As for the WARP - well, as I noted, the only advantage Brady had over Wilson was longevity. Not sure why you'd use a counting stat against a guy with a short career. Unless the argument is that guys with shorter careers don't belong.

But that's a different argument than the argument that Brady had a "better" career.

I'm not saying I think he belongs. I'm just saying that Hack was as good as Albert Belle, relative to his league, and far better than Brady.

[DrungoHazewood]

I don't think you can penalize a guy for playing in the era he played in. Leading the league in HRs 4 times is a good accomplishment no matter when you played. Not that I'm advocating for Hack Wilson, I'm just stating my view on this argument.

I'd penalize him if he played in 1920 and I'm comparing him to someone who played in 2000. It simply wasn't as hard to lead the league in something in 1920. Leading the NL in homers in Hack's era was probably about like leading the two Western Divisions in homers today.

Would Hack have led the league if Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, and Buzz Arlett had been in the league?

[DrungoHazewood]

So, in essence, anything before 1955 or so is pretty much heavily discounted? I'm with Frobby.

That's an oversimplification. Quality of play has steadily improved over time, metrics like WARP3 reflect this.

If the question is "was Hack Wilson better than the rest of the 1930-era National League by more than Brady Anderson was better than the 1996-era American League" then the answer is yes. But that's not the same as saying he was a better player. It's like saying a guy who has 1000 yards rushing in the WAC is better than a guy who has 950 in the Big 10.

[TyCobb]

OPS+ doesn't adjust for the quality of baseball being played at the time. Hack played in a segregated league, with primitive minors, no draft, many MLB-quality players hanging out in the PCL or the IL or the AA, and "scouting" often went something like Connie Mack's brother just happened to see you playing in the Three-I league in Davenport, IA, and that's how you ended up as the A's utility guy for six years.

It's much easier to lead the league in stuff when there's only eight teams in the league, and the league is put together as I described in the last paragraph.

Hack's WARP3: 42.8

Brady's: 45.0

WARP3 adjusts for the quality of the competition.

I would not put Hack in the HOF, but there is no way Brady had a better career than Hack. WARP3 takes into account for defense. How does it do that when there isn't any data on that stuff for the 1920s. (Not saying Hack was a good fielder.....he was probably an awful CF being 5'6'' and 200+ pounds.)

[Lucky Jim]

That's an oversimplification. Quality of play has steadily improved over time, metrics like WARP3 reflect this.

If the question is "was Hack Wilson better than the rest of the 1930-era National League by more than Brady Anderson was better than the 1996-era American League" then the answer is yes. But that's not the same as saying he was a better player. It's like saying a guy who has 1000 yards rushing in the WAC is better than a guy who has 950 in the Big 10.

And Robert Parish may have been better than George Miken.

But it's not really like that - because the folks who are playing in the Big 10 and the WAC at the same time have the benefit of similar technology, medicine, training, etc. Going cross-conference is different than going cross-era.

[DrungoHazewood]

And Robert Parish may have been better than George Miken.

But it's not really like that - because the folks who are playing in the Big 10 and the WAC at the same time have the benefit of similar technology, medicine, training, etc. Going cross-conference is different than going cross-era.

Metrics like WARP3 are just doing something like a strength-of-schedule adjustment, or an inflation adjustment, saying that the 1930 NL was 1.00 and the 2008 AL was 1.2. Or whatever.

If you're not going to adjust for quality of competition they you have to conclude that all of the best players in history played 100 years ago, because the standard deviations of most numbers were much higher then - there were many more dominant players, and many more terrible players. But, IMO, that's because the tools to identify the best players and funnel them to the majors were much more primitive. Has little or nothing to do with technology, and the physical attributes of the players. It's all about leagues of the past just not having as many good baseball players.

[Frobby]

I'd penalize him if he played in 1920 and I'm comparing him to someone who played in 2000. It simply wasn't as hard to lead the league in something in 1920. Leading the NL in homers in Hack's era was probably about like leading the two Western Divisions in homers today.

Would Hack have led the league if Oscar Charleston, Josh Gibson, and Buzz Arlett had been in the league?

Metrics like WARP3 are just doing something like a strength-of-schedule adjustment, or an inflation adjustment, saying that the 1930 NL was 1.00 and the 2008 AL was 1.2. Or whatever.

If you're not going to adjust for quality of competition they you have to conclude that all of the best players in history played 100 years ago, because the standard deviations of most numbers were much higher then - there were many more dominant players, and many more terrible players. But, IMO, that's because the tools to identify the best players and funnel them to the majors were much more primitive. Has little or nothing to do with technology, and the physical attributes of the players. It's all about leagues of the past just not having as many good baseball players.

I think we all know that players today are bigger, faster, stronger and therefore better than players from the 1920's. Plus you have no exclusion of African Americans, plus you now have players from around the world. No doubt the competition today is more fierce, by far, than in the 1920's.

I still think, though, that the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to honor the best players of each era. And for that purpose, winning 4 HR titles is relevant to deciding if Hack Wilson was one of the best of his era.

Where I certainly do agree with you is that there is no good reason why players from the 1930's should be represented disproportionally. So if Hack Wilson is only the 30th best player of the 1930's, there's no reason why he should be in the Hall over the 21st best player of the 1950's. I'm speaking a little loosely, here, because it is true that there may be some brief periods of 5-10 years where there are an abnormally high number of truly outstanding players.

[Lucky Jim]

I think we all know that players today are bigger, faster, stronger and therefore better than players from the 1920's. Plus you have no exclusion of African Americans, plus you now have players from around the world. No doubt the competition today is more fierce, by far, than in the 1920's.

I still think, though, that the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to honor the best players of each era. And for that purpose, winning 4 HR titles is relevant to deciding if Hack Wilson was one of the best of his era.

Where I certainly do agree with you is that there is no good reason why players from the 1930's should be represented disproportionally. So if Hack Wilson is only the 30th best player of the 1930's, there's no reason why he should be in the Hall over the 21st best player of the 1950's. I'm speaking a little loosely, here, because it is true that there may be some brief periods of 5-10 years where there are an abnormally high number of truly outstanding players.

Yeah. This is my take, too. Otherwise, as I noted, Robert Parish might go in a HOF but we'd have to remove Miken when players got good enough to eclipse him.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think we all know that players today are bigger, faster, stronger and therefore better than players from the 1920's. Plus you have no exclusion of African Americans, plus you now have players from around the world. No doubt the competition today is more fierce, by far, than in the 1920's.

I still think, though, that the purpose of the Hall of Fame is to honor the best players of each era. And for that purpose, winning 4 HR titles is relevant to deciding if Hack Wilson was one of the best of his era.

Where I certainly do agree with you is that there is no good reason why players from the 1930's should be represented disproportionally. So if Hack Wilson is only the 30th best player of the 1930's, there's no reason why he should be in the Hall over the 21st best player of the 1950's. I'm speaking a little loosely, here, because it is true that there may be some brief periods of 5-10 years where there are an abnormally high number of truly outstanding players.

Can't really disagree with any of that.

One thing to think about, though, is how to deal with the greater number of major league players today. I believe that the quality of our 30-team major league is better than the quality of the 16-team majors of 50 years ago, and much, much better than the 16-team majors of the Ruth/Wilson era. That means that you could make a pretty good argument that there should be more than twice as many HOFers from today than there were from the 1920s. The 50th-best player today is probably as good as the 25th-best from 70 years ago.

[Frobby]

Can't really disagree with any of that.

One thing to think about, though, is how to deal with the greater number of major league players today. I believe that the quality of our 30-team major league is better than the quality of the 16-team majors of 50 years ago, and much, much better than the 16-team majors of the Ruth/Wilson era. That means that you could make a pretty good argument that there should be more than twice as many HOFers from today than there were from the 1920s. The 50th-best player today is probably as good as the 25th-best from 70 years ago.

You could make that argument, but I'd rather not. It is too late to weed out some of the merely above average players who are in the Hall, but I'd like to reserve future selections who truly were among the very best of their generation. 2-3 players a year is good by me.

[Balmer Bomber]

Dale Murphy is mad you forgot him.

Shame on me for overlooking that.

[scOtt]

I haven't read this whole thread. I'll just say this... the original reason for inducting Hack may have been different, but it is justified by history. Wilson STILL holds the RBI record, almost 80 years later. That's more than half of the entire history of MLB!

[Migrant Redbird]

.... The 50th-best player today is probably as good as the 25th-best from 70 years ago.

Good point! And it ties in with the comment I want to make about the following:

... Baseball-Reference has [Hack Wilson's] HOF indicators at:

Black Ink Batting - 31 (56), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 110 (193), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 100 (150), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 39 (155), Average HOFer ≈ 50

The Black Ink Test "is to measure how often a player led the league in a variety of "important" stats. This method penalizes more recent players as they have 14-16 teams per league, while the older players had just 8." This is why Triple Crown Winners are becoming less frequent; they have so much more competition.

The Gray Ink Test "counts appearances in the top ten of the league." As with the Black Ink Test, it penalizes more recent players.

The Hall of Fame Monitor and the Hall of Fame Standards appear to be less biased against more recent players, but they still contain some inherent disadvantages for the modern player, such as pitchers trying to win 30 games or rack up 100 complete games in an era of 5-man rotations and deep bullpens.

I still use the "ink" and "HOF" tests to inform my opinions, but I don't let them drive my opinions. I also reserve the right to go back and review all the informative statistical indicators -- not just the shortcut tests -- before I solidify my opinions. And I can make an off-the-cuff assertion about a player of Stan Musial's caliber a lot easier than I can Tim Raines or Albert Belle. While I might not like Rickey Henderson very well, or put him quite on the same level as Stan the Man, Rickey's right to be in the HOF is a no brainer as far as I'm concerned.

I think if you've got a major MLB record, you deserve to be in the HoF.

I don't agree here. If a fellow plays ten years, has one monster year and knocks in 195, he doesn't go in the HOF. One record, no matter the record, doesn't get you in the HOF....

It's the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of Accumulated Accomplishments, so I fall somewhere in between lint and Sean. If a player did something stupendous enough, such as throw 3 perfect games in a row, to the point that he's still a household word a half century later, then I would argue that's sufficient reason to place him in the HOF even if the remainder of his career is mediocre.

But it truly would need to be something incredibly monumental for a single accomplishment or season record to be sufficient. Most fans would probably agree that the criteria for HOF admission should be for a body of work which includes both incredible single season records -- like stealing 130 bases in a season -- and an impressive accumulation of career benchmarks -- like getting on base more than 40% of the time over a 25 year career. We'll not agree on how to weight the various criteria and we'll find that "political correctness" is a significant wild card -- which is why I think Koufax is a "marginal HOFer", while most fans believe he's one of the top 25 players of the 20th century -- but I think we could agree that many aspects of a player's career need to be exceptional. The HOF is big enough to house a lot of players selected under a lot of differing criteria, but there's no point in cheapening it too much by letting relief pitchers or designated hitters in.